HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-24 EIR Cert & Auth Design Build Parking StructureCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 24
November 24, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, City Manager
949/644 -3002 or dkiff @newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Civic Center Project: Resolution 2009 -_ Certifying the
Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan;
Resolution 2009 -_ Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Approving Schematic Design for the Project; and Authorization to Prepare
a Design -Build RFP for the Parking Structure
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hold the Public Hearing on the City Hall and Park Development Project's Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR);
2. Adopt Resolution 2009 -_ certifying the City Hall and Park Development Project's FOR
(SCH. No. 2009041010) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
3. Exempt the project from the zoning and development regulations of the NBMC and the
Newport Village Planned Community Development Plan;
4. Adopt Resolution 2009 -_ adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
approving the Schematic Design for the Civic Center Project (aka the City Hall and Park
Development Plan); and
5. Authorize the staff and construction manager (CW Driver) to prepare a Design -Build
Request for Proposals (RFP) to construct the proposed 450 -space Parking Structure.
DISCUSSION:
This item officially concludes the Schematic Design phase of the Newport Beach Civic Center
Project. For additional information about the Project, also referred to as the Newport Beach City
Hall and Park Development Plan, see the City's website under "Projects" then "Civic Center" as
well as staff reports from:
• April 14, 2009 — Civic Center Concept Plan Approval
• October 27, 2009— Civic Center Study Session item
• November 10, 2009 — Civic Center Update on Cost Issues
About the Project. The components of the Civic Center Project include:
• An 89,000 square foot (SF) City Hall.
• A new 150 -seat Council Chambers and a Community Room.
• A 450 -space parking structure.
• A "South" Park parcel and Civic Green, more lushly landscaped.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 2
• A "Central" Park parcel, which includes the wetlands.
• A "North" Park parcel, which includes the dog park, surface parking, and is north of San
Miguel.
• A pedestrian bridge over San Miguel linking the Central and North parcels.
• A dedicated Emergency Operations Center.
• A 7,000 SF expansion of the current Central Library.
• A "library connection" (9,150 SF) — connecting the Central Library to the Civic Green.
About the EIR. Prior to taking action on the schematic design plans, the City Council must first
review, consider, and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR is
comprised of three volumes:
Volume I- Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which includes minor
corrections and clarifications to the original DEIR as a result of comments received
during the public review period. (not attached to staff report due to bulk but available
online at http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =13471
Volume II- Technical Appendices (a CD within Volume I, also online)
Volume III- Responses to Comments (online as well).
The City contracted with LSA Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting fine, to prepare an
Initial Study and DEIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the issue areas identified to be affected as either a no
impact or a less than significant impact level are: Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources.
These topics were not discussed further in the DEIR.
The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of
the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Housing and Population, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Recreation, and
Transportation and Circulation. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential
impacts were identified. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially
significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of two impacts related
to air quality and global climate change that are discussed in the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
discussion section below.
The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on
September 1, 2009 and concluded on October 15, 2009. Comments were received from the
following interested parties: the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, Airport Land Use
Commission for Orange County, California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc., California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of Costa Mesa, Caltrans, Native American Heritage
Commission, Orange County Chapter of the Native Plant Society, Tongva Ancestral Territorial
Tribal Nation, and several residents. The consultant and staff have prepared detailed written
responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR (see Volume III -
Response to Comments — also online).
Revisions to the DEIR were also prepared, which provide
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 3
1) Additional or revised information required for the preparation of responses to certain
comments;
2) Corrections to typographical errors;
3) Clarification to Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 and 4.8.9, and Project Design Feature PDF
PSU -5; and
4) The addition of Project Design Feature PDF AES -1.
The revisions to the mitigation measures and project design features do not after any impact
significance conclusion disclosed in the DEIR, and therefore, do not warrant recirculation of the
DEIR for public review. The revisions to the DEIR have been incorporated into Volume I of the
proposed FEIR and are illustrated with redline/strikeouts.
Alternatives
The document discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA (Chapter 5.0 of DEIR).
These alternatives include:
1) No Project/No Development (existing conditions would remain);
2) Development Pursuant to Existing Zoning (limit uses to a park at the Avocado site and construct a
new City Hall on existing City Hall site);
3) Alternative Location at Corporate Plaza West Site;
4) Reduced Project/Grading (Minimum numberltype of improvements needed to meet requirements of
Measure B); or
5) Modified Construction Schedule (Longer construction schedule and reduced haul route).
Although in some cases the atematives are considered to have reduced impacts and considered
environmentally superior, none of those alternatives were found to achieve the project's objectives.
The project objectives are identified in Section 3.3 of the DEIR (Page 3 -10).
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
As previously stated, all of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the
proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of
mitigation measures, with the exception of the following two impacts related to air quality and
global climate change:
Air Quality. Construction emissions from the project would exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for nitrous oxide (NOX)
and reactive organic compounds (ROC), and resulting concentrations of particulate matter
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) that would exceed the local significance threshold
(LST). Mitigation measures would be required to reduce NOX, ROC, and PM10 emissions;
however, even with implementation of all available mitigation measures, project impacts
related to construction emissions would remain significant, adverse, and unavoidable.
• Global Climate Change. The proposed project would strive to reduce greenhouse gases
(GHG) emissions by meeting and exceeding Title 24 standards and by achieving Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEER -NC) Silver Certification.
The project would implement mitigation measures to further reduce energy consumption and
vehicular emissions. The City will monitor the development of implementation requirements
of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) as issued by
GHG emissions reduction procedures and
and apply them to the project as appropriate
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 4
State agencies and any subsequently adopted
technologies relevant to the proposed project,
The proposed project is consistent with and/or furthers the intent of numerous GHG
reduction strategies and is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and Climate Action
Protection Program strategies, which are designed to reduce energy consumption and GHG
emissions. Compliance with the reduction strategies implemented by the City will help to
achieve the statewide reduction of GHG to 1990 levels. However, because project
operations would result in more than 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
per year, it cannot be ensured that the project would not impede achievement of the State's
mandatory requirement under AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact and
significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may
impede achievement of the goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
If the City Council believes the benefits of the project outweigh the two unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
order to approve the project. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for
the City Council that identifies a number of economic, legal, and social benefits of the project
related to the implementation of the February 2008 voters' approval of Measure B and desire to
incorporate the new City Hall into an overall Civic Center Complex that benefits and serves the
needs of the community through enhanced access to City government buildings and the Central
Library, and the development of a new park. (Attached as Exhibit B of Draft Resolution Approving
Schematic Design; Attachment 2).
About the Design Process. At the Council meeting on November 24, the Design Team,
including Bohlin Cywinski Jackson and Peter Walker Partners Architects will present the
schematic design. Council's approval of the schematic design allows the Design Team to
formally move into the "design development" phase. As a reminder, here is the basic timeline
for the Project:
Here is how projects like this one are constructed:
1. A proponent develops a general design ( "Concept Design ") based on program needs.
The proponent refines that design with an architect and in the City's case, a construction
management firm that has extensive experience in constructing similar projects is added to
the team. This is called the Schematic Design ( "SO ") phase.
3. During SD, the construction management firm keeps a running estimate of what
components of the design might cost if a vendor was asked today to provide that product
(i.e. calling glass manufacturers to say, "what would it cost today to get XXX panes of XX'
glass ? "). If the designer is unclear about exactly what type of plant or type of molding he or
she will put in a specific spot, the estimator puts in a dollar amount assuming the worst.
4. The design is refined from SD to "Design Development" ( "DD ") For this Project, the SD
phase is formally over by November 24, 2009. DD takes about 4.5 months. A new estimate
is done by the end of the DD phase — as the design gets refined in DD, so too does the
estimate get refined. NOTE: At this point, elements of the design that could be candidates
City Hall and Park Development Plan
E(R Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 5
for design -build contracts (like the Parking Structure) can be pulled out of the overall
package for that purpose. Design -build works well when a project component is fairly
straightforward to design and construct — like the parking structure.
5. Next comes the "Construction Documents" (CD) phase, where the design is refined even
more to documents from which the project can be constructed. This brings us to Summer
2010. With CDs in hand, the City pulls grading and building permits and puts the Project's
components (typically in one large bid package, but possibly with "bid alternates ") out to the
private sector market to bid.
6. When the bids come back in, the City would generally select the lowest responsive and
responsible bid. This is assuming that the City uses a specific method of project delivery —
there is an alternative to this project delivery method that the City generally leans toward
known as "Construction Manager at Risk" or CMAR.
CMAR is similar to longstanding private sector construction contracting in a public sector
setting. It allows the City to choose the construction manager ( "CM ") before the design is
complete. The CM is chosen based on qualifications, and then the entire operation is
centralized under one contract. The City has retained CW Driver as our CM. The City's
architect, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) and CW Driver are working together in order to
cultivate and assay the design. Using CMAR, upon completion of the DD phase, CW Driver
will give the City a guaranteed maximum price, prepare bid packages for the various
components (building trades), prequalify bidders, and coordinate all subcontract work.
Cost savings are realized in CMAR in a number of ways. By hiring the CM during the design
phase, early coordination is possible, which can increase the speed of the project and
strengthen coordination between the Architect/Engineer and the CM..Since the City hires
the CM based on qualifications, it ensures a CM with a strong allegiance to the City,
because their business relies on references and repeat work. The CM manages the project
and serves as the general contractor for a "not to exceed" fee. Any savings in the actual
construction costs are returned to the City less any agreed to incentives for bringing the
project under budget and ahead of schedule. Finally, transparency is enhanced, because
all costs and fees are in the open, which diminishes adversarial relationships between
components working on the project, while at the same time eliminating bid shopping. CMAR
is viewed by many as an alternative procurement method that still retains enough of the
traditional "design- bid - build" process that it assuages some fears concerning alternative
project delivery methods. Furthermore, CMAR enables the contractor to get involved in the
project at an early stage, thereby delivering many of the efficiencies not found in traditional
delivery methods.
At this point in time (likely Summer 2010), the Project has a formal budget and a schedule —
a budget based on bids that is no longer based on the estimates discussed in Item #3
above. This is the first time a Project has a formal budget and schedule.
7. The City or construction manager then seeks the performance bonds and insurance from
the winning bidder(s), and the bidder starts work. This project is assumed to take 18 -24
months, depending upon weather, availability of materials and labor, and more. For the
Civic Center Project, the City envisions a construction manager being on -site managing the
project on the City's behalf.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
E1R Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 6
Within the Design Development Phase, the Building Committee, with consultation of the
Council, has indicated its intent to seek design changes that could allow the Project to come in
at roughly $105 million given certain bid climate assumptions. These design changes include:
• Relocating the proposed Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to the bottom floor of the
City Office Building.
• Value- engineering about $5.4 million in savings, including some project scoping issues
while maintaining a goal of a LEED Silver designation.
• Reduce the size of or eliminate the current 275 -seat community room.
The Council also discussed having the design and bids reflect various phasing options and
possible donor opportunities. These include:
Phasing (first on the list = highest likelihood of being constructed in a later phase):
1. San Miguel Pedestrian Bridge
2. North Park (hardscape and landscaping)
3. North Park — Dog Park
4. Library Expansion
5. Library Connection
Donor Opportunities:
• Library Expansion
• Library Connection
• View outlooks, belvederes
• Bridges across wetlands
• Dog park
More about Cost. As the Council is aware, the Council dialogued with the public and with staff
about the above design changes and phasing alternatives at two recent meetings. Additionally,
the City's Finance Committee analyzed the Civic Center Project in the context of the Facilities
Replacement Plan (FRP). The FRP considers various facility needs, including the Civic Center
Project, Marina Park, Sunset Ridge Park, fire stations, the Police headquarters, and more.
Generally, the Finance Committee concluded that the Project can be incorporated within the
policies of the FRP if it stays at or below $105 million. See the related agenda item for more
information about the FRP.
About Zoning. Following the approval of Measure B, a General Plan Amendment (GP2008-
009) was approved designating the portion of the project site where the proposed Civic Center
is to be located for Public Facilities land uses; however, the zoning designation remains
unchanged. The project site is located within the Newport Village Planned Community (PC -27)
Zoning District. Within PC -27, land uses are assigned to specific areas of land. The northern
and central parcels of the proposed project are assigned Open Space uses and the southern
parcel, which is occupied by the existing Library, is assigned for Government and Institutional
uses. The proposed Library expansion would cross the boundary line of Area 4 (Government
and Institutional uses) onto Area 3 (Open Space). The proposed park and Library uses would
be consistent with the existing zoning (PC- 27) and the assigned Open Space and Government
and Institutional land uses for the proposed project site. The proposed Civic Center would not
be consistent with the Open Space land uses assigned to Area 3 of the site under PC -27.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 7
The proposed project is a unique, one -of -a -kind capital improvement project, for which there are
few or no specific development regulations or standards in the Newport Village Planned
Community text or in the Zoning Code. A city or county may exempt itself from the provisions of
its own zoning regulations, or it may amend its Zoning Code to include a provision that the
regulations shall not apply to capital improvement projects. While the NBMC does not currently
include a provision to exempt capital improvement projects such as the new Civic Center, the
proposed Zoning Code does include such a provision for capital improvement projects
undertaken in compliance with the City Charter. Rather than prepare an amendment in
advance of the new Zoning Code, or prepare an amendment to the Newport Village Planned
Community Development Plan to regulate development of the Civic Center, staff is requesting
the City Council find that this project is exempt from the zoning and development regulations of
the Code.
Sight Plane Height Limitation
Section 11.13 of the Newport Village Planned Community (PC -27) Development Plan establishes
a maximum height limitation for all buildings within PC -27 to 45 feet, measured in accordance
with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except that no building shall extend higher than the
extension of the plane ( "Sight Plane ") established by Ordinance No. 1596 for the Corporate
Plaza PC. The proposed Civic Center would be located within the area regulated by.the Sight
Plane. While all of the buildings in the Civic Center have been designed to maintain a height
below the Sight Plane, it was originally thought that a second elevator was required at the
southerly end of the parking structure to meet Building Code accessibility requirements, which
would have required a minor height encroachment into the Sight Plane of approximately five
feet. The Final EIR prepared for the project analyzed the impacts of this height encroachment
and found that the overall scale of this encroachment relative to the Sight Plane was minimal
and would not significantly impact public views. However, it should be noted that the design
team has successfully worked with the Building Department to address all Building Code
requirements and have been able to eliminate the need for the second elevator; therefore, the
current design complies entirely with the Sight Plane height limitation and no exemption from
the Sight Plane height limitations in PC -27 are necessary.
Notice: The notice required for the EIR is a Notice of Availability (NOA) notifying the public that
the DEIR is available for public review. Notice of the public hearing associated with the
approval of the Final EIR was printed in the Daily Pilot on November 17, 2009 and is shown as
Attachment 3.
Submitted by:
Dave
City Manager
City Nall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 8
Attachments: 1 — Resolution 2009 -_ FOR Certification, with Exhibits A (Findings of Fact) and B
(Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
2 — Resolution 2009 - Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval of
Schematic Design, with Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding Considerations)
3 — Notice in the Daily Pilot
NOTE: The FEIR is not attached to this staff report, but is available online here:
hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1347
RESOLUTION NO 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH NO. 2009041010) FOR THE CITY HALL AND PARK
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND
LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach City Council has determined that the City
Hall and Park Development Plan is necessary to serve the needs of the community; and
WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines
(14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a
significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'); and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2009, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under
CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to
public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential
impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2009, the City held a public scoping meeting to present
the proposed project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding
environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Report ("DEIR'), which, taking into account the comments it received on the
NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there
from, and on September 1, 2009, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments;
and
WHEREAS, the 45 -day public comment period closed on October 15, 2009; and
WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments
received on the DEIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on
November 11, 2009 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources
Code Section 21092.5; and
.9
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2009, the City of Newport Beach completed a
Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR "), for the project, consisting of the DEIR,
comments on the DEIR, responses to comments on the DEIR, and minor revisions to
the DEIR;
WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in
accordance with the CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2009, the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of
the FEIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations. (3) approval of the
project; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, the
decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in
compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental
documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to
comments, and has found that the FOR considers all potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully
complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the City Council has considered all
significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all
potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the
extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall
approve or cant' out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies
one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written
findings for each of the significant effects, .accompanied by a statement of facts
supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the
City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are
identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the
reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record;
and
X
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with
the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach: and.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written
communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to
and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FOR for the
Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA
Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts
and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's
independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was
presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the
information contained in it prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA
Findings and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA
Findings and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. Mitiqation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the
"Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "B," which
exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings The Planning
Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and
other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's
decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public
inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public
Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.).
SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The P:':anning Director shall cause the filing
of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the
State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval.
SECTION 6. Certification Posting and Filing This resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the
City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified
copy of this resolution to be filed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November 2009.
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
Edward Selich
ATTEST:
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
Exhibit A
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
CITY HALL AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009041010
BACKGROUND
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code
section 21002.) The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant
effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] speck economic, social, or other
conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may
be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
Thus, CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a].). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific
reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such
reasons must' be based on substantial evidence in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or
elsewhere in the administrative record (Stale CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's
statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The following sections provide a
description of the each of the project's environmental impacts. For potentially significant impacts, these
findings provide that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to lessen those impacts. This section also
provides a description of the impacts for which no feasible mitigatioh or alternative exist that will render
the impact less than significant. The section describes those significant and unavoidable adverse
impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project would result in the relocation of the City of Newport Beach (City) functions (except
for Fire Station No. 2) currently taking place at the existing City Hall located at 3300 Newport Boulevard to
the proposed project site. The proposed project site is located in the City between Avocado Avenue and
MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project includes eight primary components, including:
(1) construction and operation of an approximately 98,000- square -foot (sf) City Hall administration
building, Community Room, and Council Chambers; (2) a 450 -space parking structure; (3) an
approximately 17,000 sf expansion of the Newport Beach Central Library (Library); (4) a dedicated
4,800 sf Emergency Operations Center (EOC); (5) a Civic Green; (6) construction of a 14.3 -acre (ac)
public park that includes a dog park, wetlands area, bridges over the wetlands, lookouts, and a pedestrian
overcrossing over San Miguel Drive; (7) widening of San Miguel Drive; and (8) reuse of the existing City
Hall structures located at 3300 Newport Boulevard with public facilities uses. Throughout the EIR and the
following Findings of Fact, project components 1 -5 are collectively referred to as the Civic Center.
The following objectives have been established for the Newport Beach City Hall and Development Plan
project and will aid decision - makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 1
-I �
1. Implement the February 2008, voters' approval of Measure B for a new City Hall, including the City
Hall administration building, Community Room, Council Chambers, and a parking structure on City -
owned property located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue.
2. Incorporate the proposed City Hall into an overall Civic Center Complex at the proposed project site,
which would include a Library Expansion, a dedicated EOC, and a Civic Green. A park and a
pedestrian overcrossing linking the park areas on the northern parcel with the park areas on the
central and southern parcels should also be constructed.
3. Accommodate the relocation of all existing City Hall uses to the proposed project site, with the
exception of the Fire Station.
4. Implement Policy R.1.9 of the City's General Plan by developing a passive park (a park without sports
fields) that is integrated with the proposed Civic Center Complex.
5. Integrate the 3.24 ac parcel (northern parcel) located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado
Avenue, and north of San Miguel Drive, as a portion of the proposed public park and incorporate
features that will encourage use of the proposed project site.
6. Provide adequate on -site parking and circulation for all City vehicles, employee vehicles, and visitors
of the new Civic Center Complex uses.
7. Minimize costs to the City by developing the proposed Civic Center Complex on a site that does not
require the condemnation of private property or result in excessive site acquisition costs to the City
and that requires minimal demolition and tenant relocation.
8. Preserve and enhance the existing on -site wetlands.
9. Protect and enhance public views to the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Boulevard by maintaining
the existing Sight Plane above the proposed project site and providing lookouts in the park plan.
10. Improve public infrastructure on and near the proposed project site, including adjacent roadways, to
both serve on -site uses and to enhance operations in the vicinity of the project.
11. Incorporate sustainable features into the project via innovative design techniques to achieve energy
savings, water efficiency, potable water use reduction, carbon dioxide emissions reduction,
operational cost savings, and improved indoor environmental quality compared to conventional
construction.
12. Construct a dedicated EOC to allow better and faster citywide and regional coordination of response
to emergency events, including earthquakes, fires, floods, tsunamis, and air disasters.
13. Expand the capacity of the Newport Beach Central Library and create a distinct linkage between the
Library and the Civic Green, the parking structure, the Community Room, and the City Hall
administration building to promote use of the facilities and create a unified campus through design
features, including a second entry into the Library, food concession, credit union, drop -off area,
shared parking, and landscaping.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA
Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 2
• The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on April 1, 2009. Section 2.2 of the Draft EIR (DEIR) describes
the issues identified for analysis in the DEIR through the Initial Study, NOP, and public scoping
process.
• Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City staff determined that a DEIR
should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the
City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the
scoping meeting conducted by the City.
• The City prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period, beginning
September 1, 2009, and ending October 15, 2009. The City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR), including
the Responses to Comments to the DEIR, the Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The FEIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to
those comments, revisions to the DEIR, and appended documents.
• The City held public hearings on the proposed project on November 24, 2009
C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project;
• The FEIR for the proposed project;
• The DEIR;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the DEIR;
• All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
review comment period on the DEIR;
• All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed
project;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments;
• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR;
• The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents
incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period
and responses thereto;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws
and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6(e).
D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related
to the project are at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The
City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEOA Findings of Fact
Page 3
-, u
documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will
be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e).
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As a result of the Initial Study that was circulated with the NOP by the City on April 1, 2009 (see EIR
Appendix A), the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project
would not result in significant potential environmental impacts in several areas; therefore, the City
determined that these potential environmental effects would not be addressed in the DEIR. Based upon
the environmental analysis presented in the FEIR, and the comments received by the public on the DEIR,
no substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the project
would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
Agricultural Resources. The proposed City Hall site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the City's Land Use Element of the General
Plan designates the proposed project site as Public Facility (PF) and Open Space (OS). The proposed
project site is not zoned or used for agricultural use, and no Williamson Act contracts exist for the site.
The proposed City Hall site is primarily vacant (with the exception of the existing Library), but is not used
for agricultural purposes, and is surrounded by commercial and residential development. The proposed
project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. As a result, no impacts are
anticipated.
Mineral Resources. The proposed project site is not located in any of the mineral resource areas
identified in the City's General Plan (i.e., the Newport Oil Field or the West Newport Oil Field). Portions of
the project site have been classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as
being located in MRZ -1 and MRZ -3,1 indicating that the project site is located in an area where no
significant mineral deposits are present or in an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of
which cannot be evaluated.
As previously stated, the proposed project site is largely vacant, with the exception of the existing Library.
There are no mineral extraction activities occurring on site. In addition, the project site is designated for
PF and OS uses. The proposed project would not result in the loss of a valuable commercial or locally
important mineral resource. No significant impacts related to known mineral resources would result from
project implementation.
Land Use: Dividing an Established Community. The proposed project includes the construction and
operation of City Hall, a Library expansion, and a public park on an approximately 20 ac site. The
proposed project site is located between two existing roadways (MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado
Avenue) and is surrounded on all sites by existing development. The proposed project would not disrupt
or realign the existing roadway network or affect or disrupt residential neighborhoods in the project
vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
Land Use: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The Central /Coastal Orange County
Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) provides for
the protection of a number of plant and animal species. The proposed project site is located within the
MRZ -1 is defined as an area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral
deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. MRZ -3 is
defined as an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 4
.1S
boundaries of the NCCP /HCP. The project is in an area identified as urbanized by the NCCP /HCP and is
not located in the Reserve or other planned open space area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
provisions of the plan, as it allows development of non - Reserve areas.
Traffic and Circulation: Result in a change in air traffic patterns. The proposed project is located 4.37
miles (mi) from John Wayne Airport (JWA). A small portion of the proposed project site on Avocado
Avenue is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. The AELUP contains
policies governing the land uses within the JWA area. Specifically, these policies establish development
criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height
guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. As previously stated, the proposed project would be required to
implement the guidelines contained in the AELUP. The airspace over the project site could be used by
commercial aircraft and helicopters; however, both would be at sufficient altitude so as not to be affected
by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project site is outside the noise contours and safety
zones for JWA.
Cultural Resources: Result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. The proposed project
site is currently vacant (with the exception of the existing Library), and there are no existing structures on
or adjacent to the proposed project site that are over 50 years of age or considered to be historically
significant. The City General Plan does not identify any historic resources within or adjacent to the project
site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to historical
resources.
Geology and Soils: Septic tanks. The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative
methods for disposal of wastewater into the subsurface soils. The proposed project would connect to
existing public wastewater infrastructure. No on -site sewage disposal systems (e.g., septic tanks) are
planned. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal methods.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project site is not located in
the vicinity of a private airstrip, and the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Wildfires. The City defines a wildland fire hazard area as any
geographic area that contains the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure
density that potentially increase the possibility of wildland fires. The area surrounding the proposed
project site is surrounded by urban commercial and residential uses that do not contain the brush- and
grass - covered hillsides often associated with wildfires. According to the City's General Plan (Figure S4),
the proposed project is located in an area designated as "low /none wildfire hazard." Therefore, the project
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Place housing in a flood hazard area. The project site is located outside of
Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The project
site is located in Zone X (outside the 2 percent annual floodplain) on FEMA Flood Control Maps.
Therefore, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood zone.
Hydrology and Water Quality Place structures in a flood hazard area. The project site is located outside
of Flood Hazard Areas determined by FEMA. The project site is located in Zone X (outside the 2 percent
annual floodplain) on FEMA Flood Control Maps. Therefore, the project would not place housing or
structures within a 100 -year flood zone.
Hydrology and Water Quality Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The proposed project
site is not located within a Flood Hazard Zone (100 -year flood zone or 500 -year flood zone) as identified
in the City's General Plan (Figure S3).
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 5
Hydrology and Water Quality: Inundation by seiche tsunami, or mudflow. The City is susceptible to low -
probability but high -risk events such as tsunamis, and, more common, isolated hazards such as storm
surges and coastal erosion. Each of these has a potential to significantly impact Newport Beach residents
and the built environment. Areas within Newport Beach that are most likely to be impacted by a tsunami
and flooding include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay.
The project site is not located in an area of the City likely to be impacted by tsunami or flood events. -in
addition, there are no standing bodies of water in the vicinity of the proposed project site that could cause
flooding due to seiches. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Noise: Airport land use plan. Newport Beach is located immediately south of JWA and is under the
primary departure corridor. A small portion of the project site is located within the AELUP for JWA. The
AELUP contains policies governing the land uses within the JWA area. Specifically, these policies
establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of
operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. As previously stated, the proposed project
would be required to implement the guidelines contained in the AELUP. Although aircraft noise can be
heard throughout Newport Beach, the highest noise levels are experienced just south of JWA, in the
Airport Area, Santa Ana Heights Area, Westcliff, Dover Shores, the Bluffs, and Balboa Island, and are
generated by aircraft departures. The proposed project site is located approximately 4.37 mi from the
airport and is outside the 60 A- weighted decibels (dBA) CNEL for JWA; permissible exterior noise
thresholds would not be exceeded. Also, building materials will provide adequate shielding to lower
aircraft - related noise below interior threshold levels with windows and doors open. Therefore, the
proposed project would not be expected to expose people working on site to excessive noise levels
related to its proximity to JWA.
Noise: Private airstrip. The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Hoag
Hospital operates a helicopter and helipad located approximately 3.5 mi from the project site. The helipad
is located on the roof of the emergency area of the hospital. The proposed project site is not located near
Hoag Hospital and is not expected to be affected by helicopter noise. Because the project is not located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip, no potential impacts are anticipated.
Housing. Population. and Employment: Displace substantial numbers of exiting housing. The proposed
project will not displace any existing housing or displace a substantial number of people. The northern
and central parcels of the proposed project site are currently vacant. The southern parcel of the proposed
project site is occupied by the existing Newport Beach Public Library; the Library will remain after project
implementation.
Housing, Population and Employment Displace substantial numbers of people. The proposed project will
not displace any existing housing or displace a substantial number of people. The northern and central
parcels of the proposed project site are currently vacant. The southern parcel of the proposed project site
is occupied by the existing Newport Beach Public Library; the Library will remain after project
implementation.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant land use impact.
Development of the proposed project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use
designation. The conversion of the proposed project site from vacant land to a passive park and Civic
Center complex would not result in a potential inconsistency with the City General Plan or other land
planning documents, nor would the proposed project result in significant land use compatibility issues. As
with the proposed project, cumulative projects would be subject to compliance with the local and regional
plans reviewed in this section. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in, or
contribute to, a cumulatively significant land use impact.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 6
;Zk1
Impact: Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Project and cumulative
impacts were analyzed for the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) monitored intersections in
accordance with the CMP guidelines. The addition of project - generated trips is not forecast to result in
significant impacts at the CMP study intersections for: 1) existing plus project traffic; 2) forecast year 2013
with committed projects with project traffic; 3) forecast year 2013 with committed and cumulative projects
with project traffic; and 4) for forecast General Plan build out with project traffic. Therefore, impacts to
level of service standards set by the county congestion management agency associated with the
proposed project are considered less than significant.
Impact: Result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency vehicles would have access to the site at
the main entrance at the intersection of Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive, from the entrance to the
Library along Avocado Avenue south of Farallon Drive, and to the loading dock along Avocado Avenue.
In addition, a fire /medical emergency entrance from MacArthur Boulevard to the top level of the parking
structure would be available to emergency vehicles only. Therefore, the proposed project would not inhibit
or reduce emergency access to the project site. There are no impacts to emergency access associated
with the proposed project.
Impact: Result in inadequate parking capacity. The proposed project would provide 495 parking
spaces which would not exceed projected parking demand for onsite uses. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact related to parking demand.
Impact: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Because existing routes in the vicinity of the proposed project are
operating within capacity and additional ridership resulting from the proposed project could be
accommodated, no significant impacts to public transportation services are anticipated. In addition, the
proposed project would not conflict with or impact adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation.
Impact: Substantial diverse effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of the proposed project would
modify the views to and from the project site by developing the proposed park and constructing the Civic
Center complex. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to existing ocean or harbor
views from the proposed on -site vantage points and adjacent roadways and sidewalks. Motorists along
Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and San Miguel Drive (the City - designated Coastal View Roads
and Public View Corridors) would maintain scenic views of the Pacific Ocean, harbor, and Santa Catalina
Island with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the project's impact on scenic vistas,
scenic resources, and views to and from the City- designated Coastal View Roads would be less than
significant.
Impact: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. There are no City- designated
scenic resources (i.e. trees, rock outcroppings, etc) on site. Furthermore, the Pacific Coast Highway is not
a State - designated Scenic Highway, in the vicinity of the proposed project site, Therefore, there are no
potential impacts of the proposed project on trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings and state scenic
highways associated with the proposed project.
Impact: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. The proposed project would permanently alter the existing visual character and quality of
the proposed project site by converting what is currently an undeveloped site to a graded, landscaped,
and developed Civic Center and park. While the proposed project would permanently alter the visual
conditions of the proposed project site, the changes would not substantially degrade the visual character
or quality of the site and its surrounding. Project impacts related to the visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings would be are less than significant.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 7
�4
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetics impact.
Several projects are planned within the City, however, none of these projects are proposed within the
viewshed of the proposed project site and therefore the proposed project would not contribute to
cumulative impacts related to viewsheds or visual character In addition, the proposed project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to nighttime lighting conditions because project features
and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce project - related impacts to a less than significant
level. Also, the project site is located in an urbanized area, and the incremental contribution of project
lighting after mitigation would not constitute a substantial change to the cumulative nighttime light
conditions.
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The proposed
project emissions would be below the emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and no significant impact would result with respect to implementation
of the AQMP.
Impact: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
Operation emissions The project's emissions (both stationary sources and vehicular sources) would not
exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds. Therefore, the long -term air quality impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant.
Long -Term Microscale (Carbon Monoxide ICOI Hot Spot) Analysis None of the nine intersections
analyzed would have 8 -hour CO concentration exceeding the federal and State ambient air quality
standards (AAQS) of 9 parts per million (ppm). The 1 -hour CO concentration at these intersections would
also be below the State AAQS of 20.0 ppm and below the federal AAQS of 35 ppm. The proposed project
would have a less than significant impact on local air quality for CO.
Impact: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Some objectionable
odors may emanate from the operation of diesel - powered construction equipment during the construction
of the proposed project. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of
the project and are not expected to be substantial; therefore, objectionable odors associated with the
proposed project would be less than significant. An approximate 0.5 ac dog park is proposed as part of
the proposed project. Use of the park would include a requirement for pet owners to remove pet feces.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not add any long -term odor sources to the
project area and project impacts would be less than significant
Impact: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance. The project includes features including use of native species
(PDF BIO -2), wetland habitat enhancement (PDF BIO -1), and the preservation of open space on site in
the form of a passive park. The goals and policies that apply to the proposed project from the City of
Newport Beach's Natural Resource Element of the General Plan speak to the protection of sensitive and
rare terrestrial resources from urban development, including the protection, maintenance, and
enhancement of Southern California (wetlands. Implementation of the proposed project is designed to
comply with the Orange County NCCP /HCP; avoid impacts to sensitive natural plant communities,
sensitive wildlife, and wildlife movements; and avoid direct impact to jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore,
prescribed mitigation measures would require the presence of an experienced biologist to monitor project
construction and development to ensure that sensitive plant communities designated for preservation and
associated wildlife are protected during project construction activities. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
and no mitigation is required.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of fact
Page 8
-,a
PDF BID -7: Removal of Invasive Exotic Plants. Invasive exotic plant species (e.g., myoporum,
castor bean, pampas grass) associated with the wetland /riparian habitat shall be removed, and
mulefat and willow cuttings and other appropriate plant species shall be installed.
PDF BIO -2: Native Plants. The landscaping palette to be used on site shall include the use of
native plant species in addition to drought tolerant, ornamental, and turf species. The landscaping
palette shall also prohibit the use of invasive exotic plants (i.e., those plant species rated as "High"
or "Moderate" in the California Invasive Plant Council's [Cal -IPCj Invasive Plant Inventory).
Impact: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault. As the project site is not located in an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone and there is no evidence of active faulting on or around the immediate project site, the
potential for ground rupture to affect the proposed project site is considered to be less than
significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Impact: Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Potential impacts associated with
seismically induced ground failure and liquefaction would be very low and is considered to be a less than
significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Landslides. The potential for on -site landslides is low, and the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving landslides, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Settlement Potential. The majority of the materials underlying the proposed project site consist
of dense terrace deposits and bedrock, and the site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone.
Therefore, potential impacts related to ground settlement are considered to be less than significant.
Impact: Subsidence. The project does not have an oil, gas, or water pump on site and none are located
in the vicinity of the site and has not been used for the extraction of either resource. Subsidence is
therefore not considered a potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the project, and no
mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The proposed project would result in a
net increase in storm water runoff, however, the proposed project also incorporates two on -site detention
storage tanks and biofiltration swales to manage increased peak runoff from the site. These detention
basins would be sized to detain the volume of storm water necessary to reduce peak discharge from the
project site. As a result, any increase in peak discharge would be negligible. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in substantial on -site or downstream erosion, siltation, or flooding, and no
mitigation is required.
Impact: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed
project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste. Furthermore, the proposed projeot site is not located within 0.25 mi of an existing or proposed
school.
Impact: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment. The proposed project site is not included on any hazardous materials
sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and will not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment.
Impact: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. Access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles would be
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 9
;k f)
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to project construction. All proposed structures
would be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access,
which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles. In addition, traffic
generated by the proposed project would not result in significant delays to emergency vehicles. The
proposed project also includes the construction of an EOC on the proposed project site. Therefore,
because the proposed structures would not block emergency vehicle access to the site or to any adjacent
site, would not result in significant delays to emergency vehicles off site (e.g., due to traffic generation)
and allows the City to upgrade and centralize emergency operations, implementation of the proposed
project would not interfere with adopted emergency response plans and would not result in a significant
impact related to emergency response plans for emergency evacuation routes.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant hazards and hazardous
materials impact. Based on the distance to the nearest cumulative project and the amount of hazardous
materials use and hazardous waste disposal associated with the proposed project and other hazardous
materials effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the City, the project's
contribution to cumulative impacts would be considered to be less than significant. Because the proposed
project is subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review and the project would not be permitted if
it would result in a potential hazard, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to any
potential airport proximity hazards. Also, based on the distance to the nearest cumulative project and the
amount of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal associated with the proposed project
and other hazardous materials effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the
City, there would be no significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials
associated with the proposed project.
Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point
represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below.
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
• Substantially degrade water quality.
• Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction.
• Result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of material storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other
outdoor work areas.
• Result in the potential for discharge of storm water to affect the beneficial uses of the
receiving waters.
• Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water
runoff to cause environmental harm.
Construction Impacts. Best management practices (BMPs) consistent with Best Available Technologies/
Best Control Technology (BAT /BCT) are required by the Construction General Permit, Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP), and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) to be implemented during the
construction phase of the project. Erosion and sediment transport and transport of other potential
pollutants (e.g., construction material - related pollutants) from the project site during the construction
phase would be reduced or prevented through implementation of BMPs meeting BAT /BCT so as to
prevent or minimize environmental impacts and to ensure that discharges during the construction phase
of the project would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of water quality standards in the receiving
waters. Based upon the factors discussed above and adherence to PDF WO -1, which requires
compliance with the requirements of the General Construction Permit, and PDF WO -2, which required
compliance with the De Minimus Permit, potential construction impacts related to erosion, siltation
violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or degradation of water quality
would be less than significant.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
............................... ...............................
Operation Impacts. The change in land use to a Civic Center Complex, including, parking lots /structure,
driveways, a dog park, and other landscaped areas has the potential to increase the types of pollutants in
runoff or increase pollutant loading to City storm drains and Newport Bay. As specified in PDF WQ -3, the
project would implement several Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control BMPs to reduce the
discharge of pollutants of concern to the maximum extent practical.
PDF -WQ -1: State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Prior to and during
construction, the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction
Activities (Order No. 99 08 DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) and any subsequent permit as they
relate to construction activities. This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 30 days prior to the start of
construction, preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
( SWPPP) and submission of a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the Santa Ana RWQCB upon
completion of construction and stabilization of the site. Prior to construction activities and after the
final design phase and environmental determinations, a construction SWPPP and a Monitoring
and Reporting Program shall be developed for the project. The construction phase SWPPP shall
be designed to Identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; identify
non -storm water discharges; and identify, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site.
PDF -WQ -2: Short-Term Groundwater Discharges. Prior to commencement of grading
activities, the City of Newport Beach shall determine whether dewatering of groundwater will be
necessary during project construction and whether dewatering activities will require discharge to
the storm drain system or surface waters. If dewatering activities are required, the City of Newport
Beach shall comply with the requirements of the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) PermitfWaste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for Short-Term Groundwater
Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges (Order No. R8- 2004 -0021, amended by
order R8- 2006 -0065) or subsequent permit. This will include submission of a Report of Waste
Discharge (ROW D) and Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45 days prior to the start of dewatering and
compliance with all applicable provisions in the permit, including water sampling, analysis, and
reporting of dewatering - related discharges.
PDF -WC-3: Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Best Management Practices. The
City of Newport Beach shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and the
City of Newport Beach Council Policies and Municipal Code, as they relate to hydrology and
water quality. Project- specific Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best
Management Practices (BMPs)oontained in the Final Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) shall be incorporated into final design. The BMPs shall be properly designed and
maintained to target pollutants of concern and reduce runoff from the project site. The WQMP
shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the prescribed Treatment Control BMPs to
ensure their long -term performance.
Environmental Impact: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? The proposed project is not located in a groundwater recharge area.
Some groundwater dewatering may be required during construction activities. However, dewatering
activities would be temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 11
a .
Groundwater withdrawal would not be required during operation of the project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not impact existing groundwater supplies.
Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point
represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site.
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
• Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas.
Construction Impacts. During construction activities, the project site would be graded and excavated soil
would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing
conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. There is
also the potential for construction - related pollutants to be discharged into the City's storm drains during
construction activities of the proposed project. Compliance with the requirements of the General
Construction Permit, including preparation of a SWPPP, would result in less than significant impacts
related to erosion and siltation associated with construction of the proposed project.
Operation Impacts. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on drainage patterns,
on- or off -site erosion or siltation, drainage volumes and velocities, or flood potential downstream.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant hydrology andlor water
quality impact. New development and redevelopment can result in increased urban pollutants in dry
weather and storm water runoff from project sites. Regional programs and BMPs such as total maximum
daily load (TMDL) programs, the DAMP /LIP, and the MS4 Permit Program have been designed under an
assumption that the San Diego Creek Watershed will continue the pattern of urbanization. The regional
control measures contemplate cumulative effects of proposed development. Compliance with these
regional programs and the General Construction Permit constitutes compliance with programs intended to
address cumulative hydrological and water quality impacts. Therefore, the project's contribution to
cumulative water quality and hydrology impacts would be less than significant.
Impact: Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies. Under both future year (2013 and General Plan) Buildout scenarios, project - related traffic
would have no perceptible noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. The
range of traffic noise level increase is less than the thresholds of increase identified in the City's General
Plan Policy N1.8. Therefore, the traffic noise level in rease is not considered to be a significant impact.
The proposed project site would, however, be potentially impacted by traffic noise and mitigation is
required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to stationary
noise sources and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. Due to the distance from the project site of other existing uses on the east
side of MacArthur Boulevard and on the west side of Avocado Avenue, no significant groundborne
vibration would occur at these nearby land uses during project construction. Similarly, due to the distance
to the nearest residences, groundborne vibration associated with on -site vehicle movement would be
much lower than the vibration impact threshold for frequent events and the vibration impact threshold for
infrequent events suggested by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant noise impact. Under the
future General Plan Build Out with project scenario, traffic noise levels would increase by 1.5 dBA or less
compared to existing conditions along all roadway segments in the project vicinity; noise levels
attributable to the project under future General Plan Build Out would increase by 0.6 dBA along one
roadway segment and by 0.3 dBA or less along all other roadway segments. A noise level increase of 1.5
dBA in an outside environment is not perceptible to the human ear. In addition, although West Coast
Highway from Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue and East Coast Highway from Dover Drive to
Bayside exceed the 75 dBA threshold (refer to City Policy N1.8), neither of these roadway segments have
sensitive uses that would be impacted by an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by the proposed
project. Therefore, the project's cumulative traffic noise contribution is considered.less than cumulatively
considerable, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure). Due to the availability of housing, available workforce, and relatively small percentage of
population growth represented by the proposed project, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant increase in population in the City and County. In addition, the potential social and economic
changes that may result from the proposed project (i.e., increased employment opportunities and
population growth) would not result in a significant physical change to the environment.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant housing, population, or
employment impact. The proposed project would not result in substantial employment growth and would
not induce significant population or housing growth, either directly or indirectly. Moreover, due to the
availability of housing, available workforce, and relatively small percentage of growth represented by the
proposed project, the project's contribution to cumulative social and economic changes that may result
from the proposed project (i.e., increased employment opportunities and population growth) would be less
than significant.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire
protection. The proposed project would be serviceable within the Newport Beach Fire Department's
(NBFD) current staffing and resources, and the proposed project would not increase response times for
fire and emergency vehicles to the existing City Hall site or the proposed project site. According to Project
Design Feature (PDF) PSU -1, the City would also comply with Title 9 of the Municipal Code (Fire Code),
which requires installation of fire sprinklers and articulates fire flow requirements, access requirements,
placement of hydrants, and other fire protection requirements. Compliance with Title 9 would further
reduce potential impacts related to fire protection services within the City.
PDF PSU -1: Fire Code. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the requirements of
Title 9 (Fire Code) of the City's Municipal Code including installation of fire sprinklers in all new
buildings. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to. each final building inspection.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police
protection. The proposed project would not substantially increase response times or create a substantial
increase in demand for staff, facilities, equipment, or police services. No mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA findings of Fact
Page 13
�4
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public
schools. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in student enrollment in the
Newport Mesa Unified School District. Therefore, potential impacts related to public schools are less than
significant.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library
services. The proposed project includes an approximate 17,000 sf expansion of the existing Newport
Beach Central Library. The expansion area would provide a reading room, tenant space, media room,
and other ancillary uses. Generation of additional demand for library services resulting from a population
increase generated by the proposed project would be offset through the expansion of the Library and
library services, including the City Hall delivery program. Project impacts related to library services would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public
transportation. Through existing programs, the City encourages the use of alternative transportation,
including public transportation and use of bicycles. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
indicated that while more riders would be expected as a result of the proposed project, because existing
routes in the vicinity of the proposed project are operating within capacity any additional ridership
resulting from the proposed project could be accommodated. There are existing bicycle facilities (e.g.,
lanes and paths) in the vicinity of the proposed project. Existing bikeways would be maintained as part of
the proposed project. In addition to maintaining current bike lanes, the City would continue to seek new
opportunities to promote commuter carpooling and transit use, as well as alternative transportation for
City employees and visitors to the Civic Center. Therefore, no significant impacts to public transportation
services are anticipated.
Impact: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable wastewater treatment
provider. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) would provide treatment of wastewater for the
proposed project. Increased wastewater flows from the proposed project can be accommodated within
the existing design capacity of the Reclamation Plant No. 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not
exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Project impacts related to
wastewater treatment requirements are less than significant.
Impact: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Water. The project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be
able to accommodate the increased demand for potable .water through existing water acquisition
programs and pumping from existing wells (see existing setting; above). The only new water infrastructure
that would be required for project build out would occur on site as part of proposed project construction
(i.e., installation of new water pipes and meters on site).
Wastewater. The proposed project would not require, nor would it result in, the construction of new
wastewater treatment or collection facilities or the expansion of existing facilities other than those facilities
to be constructed on site that could cause significant environmental effects. Project impacts related to the
construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities and the capacity of the wastewater treatment
provider are less than significant
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA findings of fact
Page 14
PDF PSU-4: Water Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize additional water
conservation measures in the proposed Civic Center which may include, but is not limited to:
1. Low -flow faucets
2. Dual -Flush water-closets and pint (1 /8 gallon per flush) urinals
3. Drip irrigation where practical
4. Project landscaping will include drought - tolerant and native species combined with
ornamental species and turf
5. Cooling tower water use reduction via nonchemical water treatment.
Impact: Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Under the proposed conditions, there would be a net decrease in peak discharge at four of the discharge
points. At the remaining two discharge points, the increase in peak discharge would be no more than 1
percent or 1 -CFS, or both. The stormdrains have sufficient capacity to absorb the predicted increase and
still operate within the standards of the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Because the decrease and /or
negligible increase in peak discharge would not adversely affect the capacity of downstream networks,
construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities would not be required.
Impact: Necessitate new or expanded water entitlements. The project would not necessitate new or
expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for
potable water through existing water acquisition programs and pumping from existing wells (see existing
setting, above). The only new water infrastructure that would be required for project build out would occur
on site as part of proposed project construction (i.e., installation of new water pipes and meters on site).
Impact: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments. The project would not necessitate new or expanded water
entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water
through existing water acquisition programs and pumping from existing wells (see existing setting,
above). The only new water infrastructure that would be required for project build out would occur on site
as part of proposed project construction (i.e., installation of new water pipes and meters on site).
Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered energy transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable levels of service.
Electricity. The project incorporates aggressive commitments to reduce and minimize electricity
consumption and avoid wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy. Based on California Energy
Commission (CEC) projections for Southern California Edison's (SCE) service area sufficient
transmission and distribution capacity exists and off -site improvements would not be necessary. Impacts
associated with the proposed project's electricity demand would be less than significant.
Natural Gas. The supply and distribution of natural gas within the area surrounding the proposed project
would not be reduced or inhibited as a result of the proposed project, and levels of service to off -site
users would not be adversely affected. In addition, implementation of PDFs GHGA, GHG -2, and PSU -2
would ensure that energy conservation efforts are incorporated into the project with the intention of
reducing overall demand. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of natural gas services to the
proposed project would be less than significant.
PDF PSU -2: Electricity and Natural Gas. The proposed project shall meet or exceed all State
Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach codes in effect at the time of application
for building permits. (Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated periodically
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 15
_R I
to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy - efficient building standards, including ventilation,
insulation, construction, and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning systems, water
heating, and lighting.) Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes or
calculations demonstrating compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
PDF PSU -5: Energy Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize additional energy
conservation measures in the proposed Civic Center including, but not limited to:
• High - performance facade
• Mixed -mode active and natural ventilation
• Under -floor air distribution
Daylight dimming controls
• Low - wattage light fixtures
Exterior shading devices
• Proper building orientation
Impact: Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs. Area landfills have indicated that they have sufficient capacity to
accommodate construction debris from the proposed project site as well as meet the project's operational
solid waste disposal demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts
to solid waste landfill capacity in the County of Orange (County).
Impact: Fail to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCWR) and the City (refer to PDF PSU -3) comply with all
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would not
inhibit OCWR's or the City's compliance with the requirements of each of the governing bodies.
PDF PSU -3: Solid Waste. In compliance with State legislation (Assembly Bill [ABj 939), the City
of Newport Beach implements programs to recycle, reduce refuse at the source, and compost
solid waste in order to achieve a 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposed of at landfills. AB
939 also requires that all cities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and prepare a
Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE). In accordance with AB 939, the City of Newport
Beach submits an annual report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
summarizing its progress in diverting solid waste disposal.
Impact: Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice
(BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which
could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors). The City would
be responsible for all maintenance activities associated with the storm water Treatment Control BMPs.
BMPs would be inspected periodically by a designated staff member,,such as the facilities manager, to
ensure they are functioning properly. Routine and periodic maintenance activities such as debris and
sediment removal would be conducted by the City's landscape maintenance crew. Nonroutine
maintenance such as major reconstruction or replacement would be handled by contractors with
experience in constructing storm water Treatment Control BMPs. Because the BMPs would be designed,
inspected, and maintained to prevent ponding, vectors, and odors, impacts related to operation of storm
water Treatment Control BMPs are considered less than significant
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant public service and
utilities impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable
impact associated with fire protection, police protection, public schools, library services, public
transportation, water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas or solid waste.
City Hall and Parts Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 16
M, n
Impact: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Because the proposed project would add parkland to the City's parkland inventory and would not result in
substantial population growth, which is the determining factor in supplying adequate parks and open
space to residents, the proposed project would not result in increased use of existing parks or
recreational facilities that could accelerate physical deterioration of those facilities. Impacts to existing
recreation facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Development of the
proposed project, including proposed recreation facilities, could result in adverse physical impacts to the
environment. Construction and operation of the proposed park facilities are expected to result in
significant adverse physical effects on the environment as outlined in the DEIR. Even with implementation
of all feasible mitigation, the proposed project may have significant unavoidable impacts involving
construction air quality and global climate change /greenhouse gas emissions. Because each of these
potential significant impacts and potential significant unavoidable impacts relate to a separate
environmental topic analyzed in the DEIR, and there is no identifiable physical impact to the environment
that is unique to recreation resources, additional mitigation is not required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant recreation resources
impact. The proposed project would not result in substantial cumulative population that would result in
increased use and physical deterioration of existing parks. In addition, the proposed project includes the
development of a park and park facilities on the proposed project site that would address any increased
demand for improved park space generated by the new City Hall. The provision of additional park
acreage may reduce use and/or redistribute use of existing parks, resulting in a positive effect on park
demand and park acreage within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively
contribute to impacts associated with parks and recreation facilities. There is not identifiable physical
impact to the environment that is unique to recreation because the potentially significant project and
cumulative impacts relate to separate environmental topics analyzed in the DEIR. No additional
recreation - related mitigation is required to address these potential (i.e., air quality and global climate
change) cumulative impacts.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
The FEIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project.
However, the Newport Beach City Council finds for each of the significant or potentially significant
impacts identified in this section, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that changes or
alterations have been required or incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects as identified in the FEIR. As a result, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
below will reduce the identified significant effects to a less than significant level.
Land Use
Impact: Land Use Compatibility. Although construction noise occurring during hours designated in the
City's Municipal Code is exempt, some residents and users of the Library may find construction noise
irritating. The proposed project would result in a potentially significant short-term land use compatibility
impact related to air quality and noise during construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1: Construction Relations Officer. Prior to commencement of grading
activities, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Public Works, or designee, shall designate a
construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site construction activity and air
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 17
3R
quality emissions- and noise - related matters. The City shall post the name of the contact person and
contact information for complaints in a publicly visible location for the duration of construction activities.
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to land use compatibility to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this
measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact: Substantial Increase in Traffic. The addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in a
significant cumulative impact at the Bayside Drive /Coast Highway intersection for Forecast General Plan
build out with project traffic. In addition, the project construction traffic may cause significant impacts at
the intersections of San Miguel Drive with Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, if the project haul
route were to include the use of San Miguel Drive.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.1: Bayside Drive. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Newport
Beach (City) Director of Public Works or designee shall identify a future project in the City's Capital
Improvement Program that will include restriping the northbound Bayside Drive approach to the East
Coast Highway intersection from two left -turn lanes and a shared left/throughlright lane to two left turns, a
shared left/through lane and a right -turn lane. These required improvements shall be implemented within
1 year of when traffic counts completed on behalf of the City in accordance with the schedule for traffic
counts provided for in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance result in the finding that the intersection is
operating at, or over, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of 0.90.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Construction Area Traffic Management Plan. Prior to commencement of
grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall review and
approve a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan for the proposed project. The Plan shall be
designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and shall address traffic control for any temporary street
closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify
the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic
controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the project. The Plan shall specifically
prohibit the use of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive as part of
the haul route for removal of excess dirt from the project site. The Plan shall also require project
contractors to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including, but not limited to, gravel and dirt.
The City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall verify that the Construction
Contractor's Agreement requires the construction contractor to comply with the Construction Area Traffic
Management Plan.
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to traffic and circulation to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted.= Implementation of these
measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Impact: Hazards due to design features. The proposed project could result in a significant impact
related to hazards associated with design features because the minimum sight distances at the project
entrance at Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive would potentially be inadequate. In addition, the
pedestrian bridge over San Miguel Drive is not of sufficient height, it could obstruct views of intersections
and /or traffic signals.
City Hall and Parts Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 18
x
PDF TRA -1: Pedestrian Overcrossing. The pedestrian overcrossing linking the northern and central
parcels shall be a minimum of 19.5 feet (ft) above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.3: Sight Distance Analysis. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall verify that a detailed sight distance
analysis for the proposed project driveway along Avocado Avenue has been prepared. The sight distance
analysis shall be prepared according to the City of Newport Beach Sight Distance standards and
guidelines and shall include provisions for dedicated limited use areas (i.e., low- height landscaping) and
on- street parking restrictions (i.e., red curb), if necessary. The sight distance analysis report shall also
verify the required height of the pedestrian bridge (19.5 feet above the ground surface of San Miguel
Drive) as specified in PDF TRA -1. The recommendations of the sight distance analysis shall be
incorporated into final project design to ensure than an unobstructed view of the intersections and traffic
control devices would be provided. The findings of the sight distance analysis shall be included in a report
subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works, or designee. .
Finding: The mitigation measure and PDF are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce
potentially significant impacts related to traffic and circulation to a less than significant level for the
reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted.
Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant
effect to a less- than - significant level.
Aesthetics
Impact: Creation a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views. The proposed project would introduce new light sources that are typical of development
projects. These proposed sources of light would change existing nighttime views from adjacent areas,
including the residences located east of the proposed project site that currently have a view of the project
site. Even with features to reduce lighting effects, the proposed project could result in a substantial
amount of new nighttime light, and mitigation is required.
PDF AES -1: Lighting Controls. The proposed project shall include (1) automated internal shades set to
close at specific times in the City Hall administration building and in the Library expansion area to form
part of the glare control strategy, as well as to assist in the reduction of nighttime light pollution to
neighboring sites; (2) exterior lighting that will be controlled by a Lighting Control Panel with an exterior
photo-control and time clock; (3) internal lighting systems that would auto -dim after standard work hours,
leaving small task lighting for janitorial activities and to light areas where staff may be working late; and
(4) exterior light fixtures that would be the cutoff type and dark sky compliant.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1: Comprehensive Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the
City of Newport Beach shall prepare a comprehensive lighting plan for review and approval by the City of
Newport Beach Planning Director or designee. The lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
and shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the City of Newport Beach General Plan
Municipal Code. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of lighting, including infrastructure, on -site
driveways, recreation, safety, signage, and promotional lighting, if any. The lighting plan shall include the
following in conjunction with other measures, as determined by the illumination engineer:
a. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries.
b. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites.
c. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted.
d. Parking area lighting shall have zero cutoff fixtures, and light standards shall not exceed 24
feet in height.
e. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the illumination recommendations of
the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the City of
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 19
Newport Beach Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact
on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The City of Newport Beach Planning
Director or designee may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon
finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2: Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
photometric study shall be prepared in conjunction with a final lighting plan for. approval by the City of
Newport Beach Planning Director. The survey shall show that lighting values are 1 footcandle or less at
all property lines.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.3: Lighting Inspection. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final
building permits, an evening inspection shall be conducted by the City of Newport Beach Code and Water
Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare.
Finding: The mitigation measures and PDF are feasible and would avoid or substantially less potentially
significant impacts related to aesthetics (nighttime lighting) to a less than significant level for the reasons
set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation
of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to
a less- than - significant level.
Biological Resources
Impact: Substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS. While the proposed project would result in the
loss of native habitat, including some foraging habitat for raptors such as the northern harrier, merlin, and
peregrine falcon, development of the project site is covered by the Central/Coastal Orange County
NCCP /HCP that provides tens of thousands of acres of habitat reserve, including substantial areas
suitable for raptor foraging. Specifically, the conservation of Reserve areas and implementation of
adaptive management methods and other conditions of the Central /Coastal Orange County NCCP /HCP
reduce potential adverse impacts as a result of the loss of native vegetation, much of which is potential
raptor foraging habitat.
Coulter's Saltbush is a special interest plant species not covered in the NCCP /HCP. The population of 18
individuals of Coulter's saltbush located along the eastern edge of the Central Parcel would be completely
eliminated on site as a result of the proposed grading activities. Mitigation is required.
A northern harrier was seen flying over the proposed project site but was not observed nesting. Although
the possibility of northern harriers nesting on site is considered to be unlikely, impacts to northern harriers
would be considered significant if they were found to be actively nesting on site. The City would be
required to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which would reduce potential
impacts to this species to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1: Translocation of Coulter's Saltbush Population. Prior to approval of the
grading plan, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a
translocation plan for Coulter's saltbush has been prepared by a qualified, experienced biologist. The plan
shall include the following elements:
• Location of one or two suitable receptor site(s), in an area or areas of suitable habitat, with
adequate size to accommodate the existing population, as well as future growth of the
population.
• Procedures for site preparation and translocation of the existing population.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 20
(At
• Preparation for and methods of salvaging and translocating the existing population, including
the recovery of topsoil with existing seed bank. Blocks of topsoil shall be moved intact to the
extent feasible.
• Identification of performance standards, i.e., at least half (nine) of the plants are evident in
any given year following the third year of the monitoring period. This mitigation standard may
be adjusted any time prior to the end of the monitoring period under mutual agreement by the
City and the resource agencies (i.e., United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS] and
California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), particularly if factors beyond human
control limit the ability to establish a viable population of Coulter's saltbush within the 5 -year
monitoring period.
• Maintenance and monitoring provisions (for a minimum of 5 years) to promote and document
the success of the effort.
Measures to be implemented if the translocation effort does not achieve the expected results.
If it becomes apparent that the performance standards cannot be achieved, the City and
resource agencies may agree to extend the monitoring period and /or implement remedial
measures.
The plan shall be prepared in cooperation with representatives from the USFWS and the CDFG. The
project biologist shall supervise and monitor implementation of the plan, which shall be initiated prior to
grading in the affected habitat area. Once the population of Coulter's saltbush on site is transplanted to
the suitable receptor site(s), the project biologist shall monitor the population, in accordance with the plan
provisions, including implementation of any requisite maintenance and /or remedial measures and
documenting the progress in annual reports.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2: Migratory -Bird Treaty Act. In the event that project construction or grading
activities should occur within the active breeding season for birds (i.e., February 15— August 15), a nesting
bird survey shall be conducted by the designated project biologist prior to commencement of construction
activities. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior
to construction, the construction crew shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nest. The
designated project biologist shall determine the buffer distance based on the specific nesting bird species
and circumstances involved. Once the designated project biologist verifies that the birds have fledged
from the nest, the buffer may be removed. Prior to commencement of grading activities or issuance of any
building permits, the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that all project
grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META), that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results
reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in
the field with orange snow fencing.
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these
measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Impact: Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS.
Implementation of the proposed 20 -acre project would result in the direct loss of 11.68 acres of native
plant communities. The proposed project also includes the preservation of 1.56 acres of native plant
communities and 0.24 acre of landscaped and disturbed plant communities associated with the two
natural drainages (wetlands) on site. Overall, the proposed project would result in the direct loss of
approximately 88 percent of the total native habitat on site. Implementation of the proposed project could
result in significant adverse impacts to native habitat on site. Compliance with the provisions of the NCCP
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 21
It ,
as identified in Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 reduces project - related impacts to wildlife habitat on site to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP /HCP. Prior to
commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the terms and
conditions of the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Communities Conservation
Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) Implementation Agreement and construction minimization
measures identified in the NCCP. The following five minimization measures, as outlined in the NCCP, are
designed to reduce potential impacts associated with native habitat and associated general wildlife and
are applicable to the proposed project site.
1. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat that is occupied
by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 —July 15). It is expressly
understood that this provision and the remaining provisions of these "construction- related
minimization measures" are subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations
include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In
the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies /utilities shall
provide the United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game
(USFWS /CDFG) with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the
NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other CSS Identified Species
that are not otherwise flushed and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent as
practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations.
Z Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil
disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP shall be
identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel.
Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance
of CSS, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the
outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities, and the locations of any such species shall be
clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans.
3. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS /CDFG, shall be on site during any clearing of CSS. The
City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall advise USFWS /CDFG at least 7
calendar days (and preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by
Identified Species to allow USFWS /CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird
flushing /capture activities. The monitoring biologist shall flush Identified Species (avian or other
mobile Identified Species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush- clearing and earth -
moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they shall be captured in mist nets, if feasible, and
relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP /HCP Reserve System. It shall be the
responsibility of the monitoring biologist to assure that Identified bird species will not be directly
impacted by brush - clearing and earth- moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction
activities on a timely basis.
4. Following the completion of initial gradinglearth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be
avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing or other
appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or
storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas.
5. CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of
construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves
as recommended by the monitoring biologist.
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 22
4:k
measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Impact: Substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The proposed project would include the
construction of three pedestrian footbridges across the jurisdictional drainages on site. These bridges are
proposed to span the drainages and avoid any direct impacts to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) or CDFG jurisdictional areas (subject to verification by the ACOE). There are no
proposed support structures or other portions of the bridges that would be installed within the ALOE or
CDFG jurisdictional limits on site. Grading and construction work could result in incidental, or accidental,
discharge of materials into jurisdictional areas, which would be a significant project impact. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.3 is required to prevent any incidental or accidental discharge
of fill into jurisdictional areas during construction activities. The construction of footbridges across the
jurisdictional drainages would provide shade to the vegetation growing under the proposed bridges.
Therefore, constructing the pedestrian bridges could indirectly impact vegetation under the bridges. The
localized areas of shade corresponding to the location of the proposed pedestrian footbridges, would
have a less than significant impact on vegetation or wildlife, and no mitigation is required:' Although this is
a less than significant project impact, CDFG may require a streambed alteration agreement to address
the effects of shading.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3: Wetland /Riparian Habitat Enhancement. Prior to the commencement of
grading activities associated with the central parcel, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Planning,
or designee, shall verify that grading plans require the installation of orange snow fencing along the entire
construction perimeter of the jurisdictional drainages. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or
designee, shall also verify that the City has contracted a qualified, experienced biologist to be present on
site when the orange snow fence is installed to ensure that it is installed at the appropriate location
outside of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) jurisdictional limits. The orange snow fencing shall be maintained and left in place until all
construction activities in the Central Parcel are complete. The biological monitor shall be present during
any grading or vegetation removal activities occurring within 300 feet of the orange snow fencing. Prior to
removal of the orange snow fencing at the completion of construction activities in the central parcel, the
biological monitor shall conduct a final inspection of the area. The biological monitor shall, as necessary,
maintain direct contact with the City representative throughout the construction process.
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this
measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Impact: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed project would result in the direct loss of
approximately 88 percent of the total native habitat on site, resulting in a locally significant loss of foraging
habitat for wildlife. Implementation of the proposed project would have a direct, locally significant adverse
effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat on site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 is expected to
reduce project - related impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat on site to a less than significant level. As
stated above, compliance with the terms and conditions of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and
construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) serve as suitable mitigation for project- specific and cumulative impacts to
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 23
LM
native habitat and associated general wildlife on site. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 would reduce
potential construction impacts to nesting birds.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 — see above
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 — see above
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these
measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Impact: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Compliance with the terms and conditions of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and construction
minimization measures identified in the NCCP EIR/EIS serve as suitable mitigation for project - specific
and cumulative impacts to native habitat and associated general wildlife on site (see Mitigation Measure
4.5.4). Coulter's saltbush is not a covered species in the NCCP, and identified impacts to Coulter's
saltbush are addressed in Mitigation Measure 4.5.1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 would
ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the existing NCCP /HCP. No additional mitigation
is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 — see above
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 — see above
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these
measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant biological resources
impact. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and
construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP EIR/EIS serve as suitable mitigation for
project- specific and cumulative impacts to native habitat and associated general wildlife on site (see
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4). When viewed in the context of how much native habitat has already been
conserved in Orange County as part of the NCCP /HCP, the quantity of native habitat on site that would
be lost is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts to native habitats and associated wildlife.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 — see above
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these
measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEOA Findings of Fact
Page 24
„r
Cultural Resources
Impact: Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The proposed project site is considered to be sensitive for
archaeological resources. The project includes walking paths in the vicinity of the known archaeological
sites, grading, and other ground disturbance required for project construction. These project activities
have the potential to disturb or otherwise impact known and unknown archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1: Archaeological and Native American Monitors. Prior to commencement of
any grading activity on site, the City shall retain an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor
to be selected by the City after consultation with interested Tribal and Native American representatives.
Both monitors shall be present at the pregrade conference in order to explain the cultural mitigation
measures associated with the project. Both monitors shall be present on site during all ground - disturbing
activities (to implement the project Monitoring Plan) until marine terrace deposits are encountered. Once
marine terrace deposits are encountered, archaeological and Native American monitoring is no longer
necessary, as the marine deposits are several hundred thousand years old, significantly predating human
settlement in this area.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2: Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery. Prior to
commencement of any grading activity on site, the City shall prepare a Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring
Plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach
Director of Planning. The Monitoring Plan should include at a minimum: (1) a list of personnel involved in
the monitoring activities; (2) a description of how the monitoring shall occur; (3) a description of frequency
of monitoring (e.g., full -time, part-time, spot checking); (4) a description of what resources may be
encountered; (5) a description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site
(e.g., what is considered a "significant" archaeological site); (6) a description of procedures for halting
work on site and notification procedures; and (7) a description of monitoring reporting procedures. If any
significant historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains are found during monitoring,
work should stop within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the
field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other
appropriate individuals. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or
human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these
deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their
eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance
is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such
effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the
deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations Title 4(3) Section
5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical
analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings,
and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials
at an appropriate facility for future research and /or display; an interpretive display of recovered
archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or
historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials.
It shall be the responsibility of the City Department of Public Works to verify that the Monitoring Plan is
implemented during project grading and construction. Upon completion of all monitoring /mitigation
activities, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a monitoring report to the City of Newport Beach
Director of Planning and to the South Central Coastal Information Center summarizing all
monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met.
The monitoring report shall be prepared consistent with the guidelines of the Office of Historic
Preservation's Archaeological Resources Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall be responsible for reviewing
any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of findings
and recommendations.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 25
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3: Archaeological Site Avoidance. Grading and excavation in the vicinity of
existing archaeological sites CA -ORA- 167/1117 and CA -ORA -1461 shall be avoided. To achieve level
surfaces for proposed project paths, clean (culturally sterile) soils shall be used to cap and protect the
sites. Capping shall be conducted consistent with the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21083.2(b)(3 and 4). Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of
Public Works shall verify that project grading plans show avoidance of existing cultural sites. The Director
of Public Works shall also verify that grading plans show that the known cultural sites shall be capped
with a minimum of 12 inches of culturally sterile soils from a known source prior to commencement of any
grading activity within 25 feet of these sites. The boundaries of the site shall be identified by a qualified
archaeologist to ensure the entire site has been capped. Precise archaeological site information is
protected from public disclosure by State law. The grading plan shall be clearly marked to indicate that
any cultural resources information on those plans is not for public distribution.
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to cultural resources (archeological) to a less than significant level for the
reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted.
Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a
significant effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature. Sensitive sediments that may contain fossil remains do exist within the project areas, and there
is the potential to encounter paleontological resources during all ground - disturbing activities for the
proposed project.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.4: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to
commencement of any grading activity on site, the Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a
paleontologist, who is listed on the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists, has been retained
and will be on site during all rough grading and other significant ground - disturbing activities in
paleontologically sensitive sediments. The sensitive sediments that have been identified within the project
include the Middle Pleistocene marine and terrestrial sediments as well as middle Miocene Monterey
formation sediments. A paleontologist will not be required on site if excavation is only occurring in artificial
fill.
The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the
proposed project. The PRIMP should be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontologists (SVP) (1995) and should include but not be limited to the following:
• Attendance at the pregrade conference in order to explain the mitigation measures associated with
the project.
• During construction excavation, a qualified vertebrate paleontological monitor shall initially be present
on a full -time basis whenever excavation will occur within the sediments that have a
High paleontological sensitivity rating and on a spot -check basis in sediments that have a Low
sensitivity rating. Based on the significance of any recovered specimens, the qualified paleontologist
may set up conditions that will allow for monitoring to be scaled back to part-time as the project
progresses. However, if significant fossils begin to be recovered after monitoring has been scaled
back, conditions shall also be specified that would allow increased monitoring as necessary. The
monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and /or matrix samples as they are unearthed in order to
avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in
the area of the find in order to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
• The underlying sediments may contain abundant fossil remains that can only be recovered
by a screening and picking matrix; therefore, these sediments shall be occasionally be spot - screened
through one - eighth to one - twentieth -inch mesh screens to determine whether microfossils exist. If
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fad
Page 26
microfossils are encountered, additional sediment samples (up to 6,000 pounds) shall be collected
and processed through one - twentieth -inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils. Processing of
large bulk samples is best accomplished at a designated location within the project that will
be accessible throughout the project duration but will also be away from any proposed cut or fill
areas. Processing is usually completed concurrently with construction, with the intent to have all
processing completed before, or just after, project completion. A small corner of a staging or
equipment parking area is an ideal location. If water is not available, the location should
be accessible for a water truck to occasionally fill containers with water.
• Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation. This
includes the washing and picking of mass samples to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate
fossils and the removal of surplus sediment from around larger specimens to reduce the volume of
storage for the repository and the storage cost for the developer.
• Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent, retrievable
storage, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM).
Preparation of a report of findings with an appended, itemized inventory of specimens. When submitted to
the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee, the report and inventory would signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to cultural resources (paleontological) to a less than significant level for the
reasons set forth in the FOR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted.
Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant
effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The
proposed project site is considered to be sensitive for archaeological remains and was the site of a
human burial that was removed and reburied off site. Although no additional human remains are known to
be on site or are anticipated to be discovered, precautionary mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.5: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the
discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MUD). With the
permission of the City of Newport Beach, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall
complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MILD may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American
and an MLD is notified, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC
to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the
methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and
any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the
MLD. The report should be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning and the South
Central Coastal Information Center. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall
be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness
and adequacy of findings and recommendations.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 27
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to cultural resources (disturbance of human remains) to a less than significant
level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted.
Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant
effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cultural resources
impact. Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 through 4.6.5 would be implemented to reduce potential project
impacts by ensuring avoidance, evaluation, and, as applicable, scientific recovery and study of any
resources encountered. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 through 4.6.5, the
project's contribution to the cumulative destruction of known and unknown cultural resources throughout
the City would be reduced to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1 — see above
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 — see above
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 — see above
Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 — see above
Mitigation Measure 4.6.5 — see above
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to cultural resources (cumulative) to a less than significant level for the reasons
set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation
of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to
a less- than - significant level.
Geology and Soils
Impact: Strong seismic ground shaking. As with all of Southern California, the project site is subject to
strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. Strong seismic ground shaking
generated by seismic activity is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect the proposed
project.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Incorporation of and compliance with the recommendations in the
Geotechnical Study. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the
recommendations included in the geotechnical report on the proposed project site that has been prepared
by Leighton Consulting, Inc. tilled Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Hall and Park Development
Plan for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach, California (July 2009) (included in
Appendix K of the DEIR). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code
(CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations
of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the
Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to commencement of
grading activities.
Recommendations in the Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan for
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach, California are summarized below.
1. Site Grading. The subgrade below the planned foundations for buildings and improvements planned
in the area of the Library expansion shall be overexcavated in order to provide uniform support for the
buildings. Additional remedial grading shall be required to develop relatively uniform support
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 28
characteristics and reduce the potential for postconstruction swell and distortions to the building in
areas where claystone is exposed.
2. Shoring. Shoring shall be required during excavation for the retaining wall proposed along MacArthur
Boulevard due to the anticipated space constraint for slope lay back and adverse bedrock structure.
Design parameters of the temporary shoring and retaining wall shall be based on the bedrock strike
and dip and the final configuration of the wall. In addition, the retaining wall shall be designed to
include possible geologic surcharge from the bedrock. Shoring systems feasible for the site are
expected to include cantilever shoring such as soldier piles and lagging in conjunction with tiebacks in
areas when the depth of excavation exceeds 10 to 15 feet (ft).
3. Dewatering. If groundwater or perched water is encountered during project grading and construction,
dewatering may be necessary. Methods of dewatering shall be submitted by the contractor and
reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant and City Building Official prior to
commencement of grading activities.
4. Subsurface Drainage. Groundwater is not expected to be a project constraint. In the unlikely event
groundwater is encountered during construction and is at a depth that would impact project structures
(postconstruction), the subterranean slabs shall be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift, or a
permanent subfloor drainage system shall be included in the design of the slab. The design of
subterranean slabs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to issuance of
building permits.
5. Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations shall be treated in accordance with the State of
California version of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavation regulations,
Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements. The sides of excavations shall be
shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced
excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 ft, to be cut to a Y4H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type
A soils, 1HAV for Type B soils, and 1.5H:1V for Type C soils. The on -site soils (Terrace
Deposits) within the proposed excavation depths generally conform to OSHA Soil Type B. The
formational bedrock may be classified as Soil Type A but will require careful evaluation by the project
Certified Engineering Geologist. The Type A classification is not recommended where adverse (out -
of- slope) bedding orientations exist, and special site - specific design parameters will be required in
those areas. Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery,
shall be kept a minimum distance equivalent to the excavation height or 5 ft, whichever is greater,
from the excavation unless the excavation is shored and these surcharges are considered in the
design of the shoring system.
6. Spread Footing Foundations. Upon completion of the grading (cutting) required to establish the
proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a spread footing
foundation system. Bearing capacities shall be dependent on the final foundation elevation and
structural loadings of the buildings and shall be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to
implementation.
T Slab on Grade. At -grade floor slabs of the proposed structures may be designed and constructed as
a slab -on -grade supported directly on properly compacted fill or competent bedrock. If a bedrock
artificial fill transition is encountered, the planned subgrade elevation shall be overexcavated at least
3 It and replaced with properly compacted fill. The structural engineer shall design the slab and
determine the required thickness and reinforcement based on structural load requirements.
8. Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected to require various types of earth - retaining
structures: free - standing cantilever retaining walls; temporary shoring; and belowgrade walls for
several of the proposed structures. In general, free - standing retaining structures planned at the site
shall be backfilled with granular, very low expansive soil and be constructed with a backdrain.
9. Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be
conducted by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the Director
of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to the start of grading to verify
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 29
that the recommendations developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been
appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Final design shall be based on testing and analyses
of the near - surface soils following the completion of grading. Design, grading, and construction shall
be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the project geotechnical consultant as
summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building and the
City of Newport Beach Building Code. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the
project geotechnical consultant and the City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans
Mitigation Measure 4.7.2: California Building Code Compliance and Seismic Standards. Structures
and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the
geotechnical study (Leighton, 2009; Appendix K) and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2007
California Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for planned structures, the project
soils engineer and the Director of the City of Newport Beach Department of Building, or designee, shall
review building plans to verify that structural design conforms to the recommendations of the geotechnical
study and the City of Newport Beach Building Code.
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to geology and soils (seismic ground shaking) to a less than significant level for
the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted.
Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a
significant effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Slope Stability. Due to the topography of the project site and the design of the proposed project,
grading would entail significant cut - and -fill slopes, and construction of retaining walls would be necessary
in some areas. Unstable cut - and -fill slopes and an adverse bedrock structure could create significant
short-term and long -term hazards.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 — see above
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to geology and soils (slope stability) to a less than significant level for the
reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted.
Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant
effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Corrosive Soils. Laboratory testing indicates that on -site soils are not corrosive to concrete but
are severely corrosive to ferrous metals.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.3: Corrosive Soils. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director of the City
of Newport Beach (City) BuTding Department or designee shall verify that the City has retained the
services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel
may come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected
against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of
protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation
regarding the possible presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the
project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during
grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City Building Official to ensure
compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 30
Cl
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to geology and soils (corrosive soils) to a less than significant level for the
reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted.
Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant
effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Expansive Soil. Based on the laboratory test results, the on -site soils have an Expansion Index
ranging from 0 to 29, indicating a very low to low expansion potential in accordance with Table 18 -1 -B of
the CBC. However, bedrock on site includes strata of claystone that may be potentially expansive. The
potential for expansive soils in areas proposed for construction would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.4: Expansive Soils. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Director of the City
of Newport Beach (City) Building Department or designee shall verify that building plans require additional
expansion index tests if bedrock claystone is encountered at the planned subgrade elevation or during
other grading activities. If expansion index tests determine that expansive soils are present on the
proposed project site, mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional remedial grading,
premoistening of soils, use of nonexpansive material, post- tensioned slabs, construction of nonexpansive
building pads, or use of caisson foundations. During construction, the project soils engineer shall verify
that expansive soil mitigation measures are implemented, and the City Building Official shall make site
inspections to ensure compliance with approved measures.
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to geology and soils (expansive soils) to a less than significant level for the
reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted.
Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant
effect to a less- than - significant level.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point
represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
Construction Impacts. Proj9ct.construction would involve the routine use of hazardous materials
such as fuels, paints, and solvents. Project construction may result in the release of asbestos -
containing building materials (ACMs), lead -based paints (IBPs), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs)
associated with demolition activities and utility relocations.
Operation Impacts. Project operation would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g.,
solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides) typical of government office building parking, structures,
parks, and library facilities that, when used correctly, would not result in a significant hazard to
employees. Operation of the proposed project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Fuel would be stored on site for a backup
generator in a generator sub -base fuel storage lank subject to fire department guidelines.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 31
a l
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1: Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of
Newport Beach Fire Chief or designee shall review and approve a contingency plan that addresses the
potential to encounter on -site unknown hazards or hazardous substances during construction activities.
The plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors,
uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the contractor shall stop work, cordon off the
affected area, and notify the Orange County Health Care Agency ( OCHCA). The OCHCA responder shall
determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance
consistent with local, State, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.2: Predemolition Surveys. Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the
Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building Department shall verify that predemolition surveys
for asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paints (LBPs) (including sampling and analysis
of all suspected building materials) and inspections for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)- containing
electrical fixtures shall be performed. All inspections, surveys, and analyses shall be performed by
appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e.: American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527 -05, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA], Part 716). If the predemolition surveys do not find
ACMs,- LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures, the inspectors shall provide documentation of the
inspection and its results to the City of Newport Beach Building Department to confirm that no further
abatement actions are required. If the predemolition surveys find evidence of ACMs, LBPs, or PCB -
containing electrical fixtures, all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by
appropriately licensed contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of structures
(40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 745, 761, and 763). Air monitoring shall be completed by
appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations both to ensure
adherence to applicable regulations (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]) and
to provide safety to workers and the adjacent community. The City shall provide documentation (e.g., all
required waste manifests, sampling, and air monitoring analytical results) to the County of Orange Health
Care Agency showing that abatement of any ACMs, LBPs, or PCB- containing electrical fixtures identified
in these structures has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by
the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 716, 745, 761, 763, and 795
and California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Article 2.6). An Operating & Maintenance Plan
(O &M) shall be prepared for any ACM, LBP, or PCB- containing fixtures to remain in place and will be
reviewed and approved by the County of Orange Health Care Agency.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.3: Generator Sub -Base Fuel Storage Tank. Prior to issuance of building
permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee shall review
installation plans for the generator sub -base fuel storage tank. The plans shall include the design, details,
and specifications pertaining to the following:
1. Quantities and types of liquids to be stored
2. Distances from tanks and dispensers to property lines, buildings, and other exposures
3. Vehicle access
4. Fire appliance
5. Vehicle impact protection
6. Protected tanks and their supports
7. Methods of storage and dispensing
B. Overfill prevention, spill containment, vents, vapor recovery dispensers, and other equipment and
accessories
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 32
C�
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials (routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City
Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have
been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level.
Impact: Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a project area located within an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport. A portion of proposed project site is located within the AELUP and the
20,000 ft Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. Although there are no
permanent structures proposed for this parcel, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requiring the
FAR Part 77 review to consider trees or any other improvement that achieves some height.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.4: Determination of No Hazards. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall file a
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1) with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The Director of Planning, or
designer, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to
the issuance of building permits for the northern parcel.
Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials (location near a public use airport) to a
less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this
measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the
Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the
severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level.
Noise
Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point
represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below.
Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies.
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project: (1) traffic
noise associated with construction crew; commutes and the transport of construction equipment and
materials to the site; and (2) noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of buildings on the
project site. Short-term construction - related impacts associated with worker commute, equipment
transport to the project site, and export of excavated materials would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. Construction- related noise impacts from the proposed project would be
potentially significant due to the length of the construction period (24-30 months) and level of noise from
the combination of construction activities (up to 80 dBA maximum instantaneous noise level [LmJ.
Mitigation Measure 4.11.1: Construction Noise. Prior to commencement of grading activities or
issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, or
designee, shall verify that the following notes appear on grading and construction plans:
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CECA Findings of Fact
Page 33
czd
1. During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers' standards.
2. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
3. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest
distance between construction- related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors nearest the
project site during all project construction.
4. The construction contractor shall limit all construction - related activities that would result in high
noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction would occur outside
of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays.
Mitigation Measure 4.11.2: Ventilation Requirements. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
documentation shall be provided to the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department, or
designee, demonstrating that project buildings meet ventilation standards required by the California
Building Code (CBC) with the windows closed. It is likely that a form of mechanical ventilation, such as an
air - conditioning system, will be required as part of the project design for the City Hall buildings and Library
expansion.
Mitigation Measure 4.11.3: Park Uses. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director of the City
of Newport Beach Planning Department, or designee, shall review construction plans and verify that all
potential sensitive uses proposed within the park areas, such as picnic tables, shall be located outside the
70 A- weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) impact zone from MacArthur
Boulevard, which would extend to 167 feet (ft) from the roadway centerline north of San Miguel Drive and
to 140 ft from the roadway centerline south of San Miguel Drive.
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially
significant impacts related to noise (construction noise) to a less than significant level for the reasons set
forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of
these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -
than- significant level.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project where either
mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or mitigation would lessen impacts but not to a less than
significant level. The following adverse impacts would remain significant and unavoidable:
1. Construction Air Quality (Short-Term Project and Short-Term Cumulative)
Impact: Construction emissions from the project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for nitrous oxide (NOx) and reactive organic compounds
(ROC), and resulting concentrations of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMio) that
would exceed the local significance threshold (LST) threshold. Mitigation measures would be required to
reduce NOx, ROC, and PM10 emissions; however, even with implementation of all available mitigation
measures, project impacts related to construction emissions would remain significant adverse and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1: SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. The City of Newport Beach shall ensure that
the project complies with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 to
assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 34
55
with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires implementation of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust
suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Prior to commencement of grading
activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that
notes are included on grading and construction plans and referenced in the construction contractor's
agreement that the construction contractor shall be responsible for compliance with Rules 402 and 403.
The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows:
1. Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
2. Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly
watered prior to earthmoving.)
3. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at
least 2 feet (ft) of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code
(CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the
trailer).
4. Pave construction access roads at least 100 ft onto the site from main road.
5. Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: Dust Suppression. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director
of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included on
construction and grading plans and referenced in the contractor's agreement that requires use of dust
suppression measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook during project grading and construction. The
construction contractor shall be responsible for the implementation of the following dust suppression
measures:
1. Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
2. Increase active site watering to three times daily.
1 All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
4. When visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets, those streets shall be swept once per
day to the extent necessary to remove the visible soil material (recommend water sweepers with
reclaimed water).
5. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash
trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
6. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically
stabilized.
7. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: Construction Equipment. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall ensure that
construction documents require the Construction Contractor to select the construction equipment used on
site based on low- emission factors and high- energy efficiency. Prior to commencement of grading
activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, or designee, shall also
verify that construction contracts include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: Electric or Alternative Fuel- Powered Equipment. Prior to issuance of a
Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall
verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction
Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative -fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel powered
engines where feasible.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fad
Page 35
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5: Equipment Shut Off and Smog Season Hours. Prior to issuance of a Notice
to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify
that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the
construction period will be extended to minimize the occurrence of vehicles and equipment operating at
the same time and thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6: Traffic Obstruction Minimization. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed,
the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction contracts
and/or grading plans include a statement that construction trucks, to the extent feasible, shall avoid using
the streets during peak -hour traffic; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety
adjacent to existing roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.7: Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to issuance of a Notice to
Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction
contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.8: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Prior
to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or
designee shall verify that construction contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that the
Construction Contractor shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings.
Emissions associated with architectural coatings would be reduced by complying with these rules and
regulations, which include using pre- coated /natural colored building materials, using water -based or low -
volatile organic compounds (VOC) coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high
transfer efficiency.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and substantially lessen the significant construction air quality
impacts of the proposed project. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted.
Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a
significant effect but not to a less- than - significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.1
through 4.4.8 would minimize construction emissions generated during project site preparation, grading,
and construction; however, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, NOx emissions would
exceed SCAQMD thresholds during the grading phase, ROC emissions would exceed SCAQMD
thresholds threshold during the grading phase and architectural coating, and PMio concentrations would
exceed LST thresholds during grading. Construction air quality impacts would remain Significant and
Unavoidable.
2. Global Climate Change (Greenhouse Gases)
Impact: Global Climate Change. The proposed project would strive to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG)
emissions by meeting and exceeding Title 24 standards and by achieving Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED -NC) Silver Certification. The project would implement
mitigation measures to further reduce energy consumption and vehicular emissions. The City will monitor
the development of implementation requirements of AB 32, as issued by State agencies, and any
subsequently adopted GHG emissions reduction procedures and technologies relevant to the proposed
project.
The proposed project is consistent with and /or furthers the intent of numerous GHG reduction strategies
and is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and Climate Action Protection Program strategies,
which are designed to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. Compliance with the reduction
strategies implemented by the City will help to achieve the statewide reduction of GHG to 1990 levels;
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 36
C�
however, this cannot ensure that the project would not exceed Threshold 4.8.1 because project
operations would result in more than 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO21) per year.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable project impact and result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may
impede achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
While the length and intensity of the construction period for this project would result in emissions that
contribute to the project's significant impact, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the short-
term construction- related emissions from this project would not in themselves be considered to present a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact of global climate change or may impede
achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
PDF GHG -1: LEED -NC Silver. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall work with the project designers
and engineers to identify United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design -New Construction (LEED -NC) Silver credit design components to be incorporated into the
construction plans for the proposed project, including both the City Hall administration building,
Community Room, Council Chambers, and Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The City shall register
the subject buildings in the LEED -NC Silver program prior to final design and shall seek LEED -NC Silver
certification after construction.
PDF GHG -2: Energy Efficiency. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall seek ways to reduce waste
and energy consumption and to increase the efficiency of its operations in order to minimize impacts to
the environment and enhance the sustainability of its operations. Toward that end, the City has
incorporated the following commitments into the project plans:
1. The City is committed to evaluating and implementing energy efficiency programs and
procedures, including the use of solar photovoltaic panels on new structures where feasible, use
of energy - efficient light fixtures, implementation of energy- saving devices and equipment, and
energy - efficient design of new facilities.
2. The City will continue to implement existing waste reduction programs, including office recycling,
source reduction, waste reduction and reuse, purchase of recycled content products, and source
separation and recycling of materials, including composting of biodegradable materials.
3. The City is committed to achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -New
Construction (LEED -NC) Silver certification for the new City Hall facility and Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) (see Project Design Feature [PDF] GHG-1, above).
4. The City will conduct regular energy audits, and commissioning during new construction and
renovation, as appropriate, with implementation of follow -up improvements to reduce energy
consumption for the new City Hall facility and the Emergency Operation Center (EOC).
5. The City will require contractors to use zero- or low- emission vehicles and equipment when
possible.
6. The City will landscape the proposed project site with a combination of native, drought - tolerant,
and ornamental plants (refer to PDF BIO 2).
7. The City will implement a comprehensive potable water conservation strategy for irrigation and
water service within the City Hall facility and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
8. The City will continue to seek new opportunities to promote commuter carpooling and transit use,
as well as alternative transportation for City employees and Civic Center visitors.
Mitigation measures to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions are listed below:
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 37
co
Mitigation Measure 4.8.1: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project plans and
specifications shall include a statement that delivery of construction equipment and materials will be
scheduled such that queuing of trucks on and off site shall be minimized. The requirement shall be
implemented. by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or
designee.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.2: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project plans and
specifications shall include a statement that, to the extent feasible, all diesel- and gasoline - powered
construction equipment shall be replaced with equivalent electric equipment. The requirement shall be
implemented by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or
designee.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate
that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates ENERGY STAR - rated, energy -
efficient T-8 high-output fixtures, and /or compact fluorescent and other comparable energy- saving lighting
fixtures. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the
State Architect. Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.4: Prior to issuance of a building permit for a specific facility, the project engineer
shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates enhanced
insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized in structures that will be mechanically
heated and /or cooled. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided to the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified
design features or equipment shall be conducted by the contractor and confirmed by the City of Newport
Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.5: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City of Newport Beach
Director of Planning, or designee, and the Project Engineer will document and verify, installation of the
identified design features or equipment designed to limit air leakage through the structure or within the
heating and cooling distribution system to minimize energy consumption in structures that will be
mechanically heated and /or cooled.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate
that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates United States Environmental Policy
Agency (EPA) WaterSense Program water- efficient products (bathroom sink faucets, low -flush urinals,
dual -flush toilets, etc.). Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided to the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified
design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or
designee, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.7: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate
that the design of the proposed buildings or structures that will be mechanically heated and /or cooled
incorporates space heating and cooling equipment that meets or exceeds ENERGY STAR -rated
standards. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to
the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee. Installation of the identified design features
or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.8: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate
that the proposed buildings or structures incorporate appliances that meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR -
rated standards. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project
engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 38
c4
Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach
Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
shall Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of
proposed buildings or structures considered includes installation /operation of renewable electric
generation systems. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project
engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval.
Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach
Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.10: The City will ensure that construction plans for the new City Hall facility
include bicycle racks and temporary storage lockers, as reflected in the building plans prior to the
issuance of construction permits. City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, will verify
compliance and confirm implementation during construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.11: The City shall offer preferential parking for electric and hybrid vehicles at the
new City Hall facility. City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and
confirm implementation during construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: Dust Suppression. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director
of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included on
construction and grading plans and referenced in the contractor's agreement that requires use of dust
suppression measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook during project grading and construction. The
construction contractor shall be responsible for the implementation of the following dust suppression
measures:
1. Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
2. Increase active site watering to three times daily.
3. All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
4. When visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets, those streets shall be swept once per
day to the extent necessary to remove the visible soil material (recommend water sweepers with
reclaimed water).
5. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash
trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
6. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically
stabilized.
7. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: Construction Equipment. Prior to commencement of '.grading activities, the
Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall ensure that
construction documents require the Construction Contractor to select the construction equipment used on
site based on low- emission factors and high - energy efficiency. Prior to commencement of grading
activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, or designee, shall also
verify that construction contracts include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: Electric or Alternative Fuel- Powered Equipment. Prior to issuance of a
Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall
verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction
Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative -fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel powered
engines where feasible.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 39
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5: Equipment Shut Off and Smog Season Hours. Prior to issuance of a Notice
to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify
that construction contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the
construction period will be extended to minimize the occurrence of vehicles and equipment operating at
the same time and thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6: Traffic Obstruction Minimization. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed,
the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction contracts
and /or grading plans include a statement that construction trucks, to the extent feasible, shall avoid using
the streets during peak -hour traffic; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety
adjacent to existing roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.7: Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to issuance of a Notice to
Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction
contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project
related to GHG emissions and global climate change. The City Council hereby directs that these
measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into
the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the
severity of a significant effect but not to a less- than - significant level. Although the City has incorporated
alternative transportation components, including bicycle storage and changing rooms for employees and
Civic Center visitors and enhanced energy efficiency features, approximately 89-90 percent of the
project's total CO2e emissions are related to vehicle exhaust emissions. These vehicle exhaust emissions
themselves are controlled by the State and federal governments and are outside the control of the City;
thus, the City's efforts to improve on conventional construction techniques will not affect mobile source
emissions. The proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable project impact and result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may
impede achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. These
impacts would remain Significant and Unavoidable.
Ill. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to its
location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of the
alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the ". . . discussion of
alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to
some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The following section
discusses the project alternatives that were considered and analyzed in the EIR and summarizes the
consistency of these alternatives with the objectives of the proposed pro.(ect.
The FEIR identified five alternatives as follows:
1. No Project/Development Pursuant to Existing General Plan (Alternative 1)
2. Development Pursuant to Existing Zoning (All park on proposed project site and a new City Hall on
the existing City Hall site) (Alternative 2)
3. Alternative Location at Vacant Land /Corporate Plaza West Site (Alternative 3)
4. Reduced Project (Alternative 4)
5. Modified Construction Schedule (Alternative 5)
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 40
ri
The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the alternatives considered are
provided below.
No Project Alternative
Description: This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the proposed project site and the
existing City Hall site would remain in the same condition as they were at the time the NOP was
published (April 2009). The setting of the site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout
Chapter 4.0 of the DEIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the
impact assessment of the proposed project. This alternative represents the environmental conditions that
would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the project site. In addition, the No
Project/No Development Alternative anticipates that the existing City Hall would continue to operate
without new improvements to existing facilities.
Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the existing
conditions on both the proposed project site and the existing City Hall site would remain unchanged. The
proposed project site is currently vacant with the exception of the existing Library on the southern parcel.
The existing City Hall site is occupied by over 47,809 gross square feet of space in five buildings and five
temporary buildings (trailers). No new air pollutant emissions, construction emissions, or GHG emissions
would be generated by short-term construction emissions since no new construction is proposed. In
addition, no additional vehicle trips would be generated by the site with the No Project/No Development
Alternative therefore this alternative would not result in a significant impact related to global climate
change or GHG emissions.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Development Alternative would partially
achieve two (2) of the 13 project objectives. The No Project/No Development Alternative would preserve
(but not enhance) the on -site wetlands because no changes would occur on site. In addition, the No
Project/No Development Alternative would protect (but not enhance) views from MacArthur Boulevard by
maintaining the existing view plane in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The No Project/No
Development Alternative would not achieve or further any other project objectives.
Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the No Project Alternative identified in the
DEIR and FEIR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: This alternative would not be consistent with the requirements of
Measure B. A Space Utilization Assessment completed in 2002 found that the existing City Hall was
smaller than the city halls of comparable jurisdictions by between 11 and 25 percent and that space
conditions are functionally and qualitatively below desirable levels.' After completion of the Space
Utilization Study, the City added additional temporary buildings (portable buildings or trailers), but overall
the facilities are still considered to be over capacity. On -site parking is also considered to be insufficient to
meet demand. The City currently has no plans to expand staffing levels; however, the existing conditions
related to insufficient space and parking for current staff and service levels would remain under this
alternative.
The existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's
materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not
adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to
2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At
the same time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008,
children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library
' Griffin Advisors. Newport Beach Civic Center City Hall Facilities Needs Assessment. Report on
Space Utilization Assessment. August 2002.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 41
G-
(NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library
or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative.
In addition to the library and City Hall complex, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as
a Civic Green, various transportation improvements that are part of the project design, as well as the
Emergency Operations Center. It should be noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not
be made ADA- compliant without substantial on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this
alternative potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3
(Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and recreational for persons with
disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for views and access for persons in
wheelchairs.
Existing Zoning Alternative
Description: The Existing Zoning Alternative would include improvement of the northern and central
parcels for passive park uses and retention of the existing Library on the southern parcel. No changes/
expansion would occur to the existing Library under this Alternative. In conformance with the land uses
assigned to the project site under PC -27, the Existing Zoning Alternative includes construction and
operation of an approximately 16 ac passive park on the proposed project site. A pedestrian bridge could
be constructed to link the central and northern parcels, but it is unlikely that any public infrastructure
improvements (e.g., Treatment and Structural BMPs or roadway improvements) would occur. The on -site
wetlands could be preserved and enhanced under this alternative. Some water conservation measures
may be incorporated into the park, but overall sustainability options would be limited. For the purposes of
this analysis it is also assumed that City Hall would continue to operate at the existing City Hall site.
Environmental Effects: Because the Existing Zoning Alternative assumes development of a public park
on the entire project site, presumably with less grading, the air emissions from the Existing Zoning
Alternative would be substantially less than that of the proposed project. The Existing Zoning Alternative
would reduce or avoid significant unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed project. In addition,
fewer additional vehicle trips would be generated by the site with the Existing Zoning Alternative therefore
this alternative would not result in a significant impact related to global climate change or greenhouse gas
emissions.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Existing Zoning Alternative would be potentially consistent
with four (4, 5, 8, and 9) of the 13 project objectives. The Existing Zoning Alternative would implement
General Plan policies by developing a passive park on the proposed project site, integrating the northern
and central parcels, preserving and enhancing on -site wetlands, and protecting and enhancing public
views from MacArthur Boulevard.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Existing Zoning Alternative identified
in the DEIR and FOR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding. This alternative would not be consistent with the requirements of
Measure B. A Space Utilization Assessment completed in 2002 found that tije existing City Hall was
smaller than the City Halls of comparable jurisdictions by between 11 and 25 percent and that space
conditions are functionally and qualitatively below desirable levels.' After completion of the Space
Utilization Study, the City added additional temporary buildings (portable buildings or trailers) to the
existing City Hall site, but overall the existing facilities are still considered to be over capacity. Existing on-
site parking is also considered to be insufficient to meet demand. The City currently has no plans to
expand staffing levels; however, the existing conditions related to insufficient space and parking for
current staff and service levels would remain under this alternative.
Griffin Advisors. Newport Beach Civic Center City Hall Facilities Needs Assessment. Report on Space
Utilization Assessment. August 2002.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 42
Gz
The existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's
materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not
adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to
2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At
the same time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008,
children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library
(NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library
or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative.
In addition to the library and City Hall complex, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as
a Civic Green and various transportation improvements that are part of the project design. It should be
noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial
on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General
Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City
to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with
consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs.
Corporate Plaza West Alternative
Description: The Corporate Plaza West site is approximately 10 ac and consists of three existing
buildings located at 1200, 1400, and 1600 Newport Center. Figure 5.1 provides the location of this site.
The three buildings on site are approximately 40,000 sf each, for a total of 120,000 sf on site. Figure 5.2
provides an illustration of the site. The existing buildings are surrounded by surface parking. Although the
existing on -site buildings would provide sufficient office space to meet the needs of City Hall, the
relocation of City Hall to this site would require that the existing buildings on site be retrofitted, and design
modifications would be required to address unique City requirements for large public meeting /assembly
areas (e.g., City Council Chambers). For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that an EOC
component would not be included in this alternative because of the additional retrofitting/construction
requirements of this use. This alternative assumes that the City would (a) purchase the property from the
Irvine Company or (b) lease office space from the Irvine Company. The current land owner may or may
not be willing to sell. Such a sale could be implemented by the City through eminent domain, but such a
course of action is contrary to the project objectives.
For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that if the City Hall were not located on the proposed
project site, a 16 ac park would be developed on that site in conformance with the land uses assigned to
the project site under PC -27.
Environmental Effects: The Corporate Plaza West Alternative would result in less than significant air
quality impacts. The air quality emissions from the Corporate Plaza West Alternative would be less than
that of the proposed project. The Corporate Plaza West Alternative would reduce or avoid a significant
unavoidable air quality impact of the proposed project. In addition, the Corporate Plaza West Alternative
would result in less than significant project and cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. The
Corporate Plaza West Alternative would reduce or avoid a significant unavoidable impact of the proposed
project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: Locating the City Hall at the Corporate Plaza West site would be
potentially consistent with five (4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) of the 13 project objectives. With some modifications, the
Corporate Plaza West site would accommodate all existing City Hall uses. In addition, the construction of
a park on the proposed project site would implement General Plan policy by developing a passive park on
the proposed project site, preserve and enhance on -site wetlands, and protect and enhance public views
from MacArthur Boulevard. Construction of a pedestrian bridge at the proposed project site would
integrate the northern and southern parcels.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 43
dU
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Corporate Plaza West Alternative
identified in the DEIR and FOR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Measure B was approved by the voters and specifically identifies the
proposed project site for the new City Hall and related improvements. Therefore, this alternative would
not be consistent with the requirements of Measure B, because it would preclude implementation of the
new City Hall at the proposed project site. In addition, it is the City's preference to own the Civic Center
buildings. The current land owner of this alternative site may or may not be willing to sell. Such a sale
could be implemented by the City through eminent domain, but such a course of action is contrary to the
project objectives.
The existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's
materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not
adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to
2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At
the some time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008,
children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library
(NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library
or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative.
In addition, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as a Civic Green and various
transportation improvements that are part of the project design. It should be noted, as well, that the
passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial on site grading due to
the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Policies R.3.1
(Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and
recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for
views and access for persons in wheelchairs.
Reduced Project Alternative
Description: The Reduced Project Alternative evaluates the minimum number /type of improvements
needed to meet the requirements of Measure B. The proposed City Hall would consist of one, single -
story, 68,000 sf building with a 220 -space parking structure and 80 surface parking spaces. Because the
building would be a single story, the building would be below the view plane. As with the proposed
project, access would occur at Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue, similar to the proposed project. In
addition to reducing the size of the proposed City Hall building, this alternative also eliminates the Library
expansion, eliminates the EOC, and reduces the size of the parking structure. For the purposes of this
analysis, all other project components (e.g., incorporation of conservation measures and project design
features) are considered to be the same as the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would
reduce the quantity of excavated material removed from the project site from approximately 320,000
cubic yards (cy) (proposed project) to 150,000 cy.
Environmental Effects: The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable
construction air quality impact. Operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. The
Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced construction air quality impacts when compared to
the proposed project, but they would still be significant and unavoidable. In addition, the Reduced Project
Alternative would result in a significant contribution to a cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. The
Reduced Project Alternative would result in a less than significant project -level impact related to GHG
emissions. The Reduced Project Alternative would avoid a significant unavoidable project -level impact of
the proposed project, but would result in a comparable significant cumulative impact associated with GHG
emissions.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 44
GS
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Project Alternative would be potentially consistent
with 10 of the 13 project objectives (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). The Reduced Project Alternative
would not achieve three project objectives (2, 12, and 13).
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Reduced Project Alternative identified
in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable
impacts of the proposed project to below a level of significance. In addition, although the Reduced Project
Alternative would result in the construction of a new City Hall on the proposed project site, it would not
incorporate City Hall into a larger Civic Center that would consist of an expanded Library, EOC, and a
Civic Green. The Reduced Project Alternative would not include the expanded Library or any functional or
thematic linkages between the existing Library and the proposed City Hall. Other than shared parking, the
two structures would operate independently of one another and would not be unified through design or
additional service features. The independent function of the two structures is not consistent with the
objective of creating a "Civic Center" type setting.
As noted above, the existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand
for children's materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central
Library does not adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly
doubled from 1990 to 2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by
the City in 2002. At the same time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons
rose. In 2008, children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public
Library (NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing
Library or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative.
In addition to the library and City Hall complex, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as
a Civic Green and various transportation improvements that are part of the project design. It should be
noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial
on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General
Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City
to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with
consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs.
Modified Construction Schedule
Description: The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative considers construction of the project as
proposed in the FEIR, with a longer construction period and a reduced haul route. The project proposes a
32 -month construction schedule. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative analyzes a 48 -month
construction schedule (thereby increasing the grading period by 16 months). The proposed project also
assumed that grading material (i.e., dirt from the project site) would be hauled 32 mi to the Prima
Deshecha landfill for disposal. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative analyzes a construction
haul route of 16 mi, which is roughly the distance between the proposed project site and-the planned
Orange County Great Park' project site. For the purposes of the analysis in the FEIR, all other project
components (e.g., incorporation of conservation measures and project design features) were considered
to be the same as the proposed project.
Environmental. Effects: The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in significant and
unavoidable construction air quality impacts. Operational air quality impacts would be less than
significant. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in a less severe impact related to
' The Orange County Great Park is a planned 1,300 -acre park located in the City of Irvine on the
former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 45
(,
NOx than the proposed project. Emissions of ROC and the level of exceedance of the LST for PM,p
concentrations would be comparable for this alternative and the proposed project. In addition, the
Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to
GHG emissions. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in impacts related to the
GHG emissions that would be comparable to those of the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would be
potentially consistent with all 13 of the project objectives.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Modified Construction Schedule
Alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable
impacts of the proposed project to below a level of significance. It would reduce the significant impact of
the proposed project related to daily NOx emissions during mass grading. However, even with the
substantial reduction in daily emissions of NO, achieved by extending the construction schedule, the
construction emissions still exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. The Modified Construction Schedule
Alternative also reduced the haul route distance to bring about a reduction in NOx emissions (NOx is a
pre- cursor of smog, which is produced a few days after the NOx is emitted). Although this alternative
reduces daily NOx emissions, this daily reduction is counterbalanced to a considerable degree by the fact
that the emission period would be substantially extended under this alternative since project NOx
emissions will occur for a period of 16 additional months. Daily NOx emissions would be decreased, but
not below a level of significance, and the extended construction period would extend the period of smog
production for that period of time. In addition, NOx emissions would affect the general region of the haul
route, thereby producing an extended period of smog in the localized haul route region for an additional
16 months.
Moreover, the impacts of PM,o concentrations, which are a localized impact directly related to grading,
could be substantial if they were extended as contemplated under this alternative. With the duration of
grading being extended under the Modified Construction Alternative schedule to 16 months, the effects
on neighboring residents and businesses would have to be endured for this extended period of months to
gain a relatively minor amount of reduction of PM,v (or dust) on a daily basis. Even though the
concentrations of PM,o from grading will be slightly reduced, the off - setting impacts of 16 months of
additional grading would be substantial. In addition, the Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would
require the same application of architectural coatings as the proposed project, and therefore it too would
result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic compounds (ROC). The
construction emissions of PM,p for Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in
concentrations that exceed the LST threshold. Therefore, significant impacts would still result for NO„ and
ROC emissions and for PM,o concentrations with this alternative. Finally, the Modified Construction
Schedule Alternative would considerably lengthen the construction period and, therefore, the time frame
that residents would be exposed to disrupting construction traffic, noise, emissions, and other impacts.
In sum, the net reduction in the amount of NOx and PM,o created by the Modified Construction Alternative
does not benefit the environment or the community as much as a shortened period of construction that
would be created by the proposed project. As with the air quality issues above, the Modified Construction
Alternative would lessen the time period of grading and construction on a daily basis, but lengthen the
overall duration of general grading and construction activity at the site affecting traffic from the extended
truck hauling and noise impacts on adjacent properties and the library users for an additional 16 months.
On balance, because the benefits of the Modified Construction Alternative do not substantially reduce the
proposed project's air quality emissions (the daily NOx reductions are offset by the increased duration of
emissions), the relative impacts of extending the construction period by 16 months on the surrounding
community in regard to creation of smog, the affects of dust, the creation of noise and the inconvenience
of haul route truck traffic are not acceptable.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 46
� G1
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in
the planning and CEQA processes.
2. To the degree that any impacts described in the FEIR are perceived to have a less than significant
effect on the environment or that such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the
environment as discussed in the DEIR, the City has responded to key environmental issues and has
incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the
proposed project to the maximum extent feasible.
3. Comments regarding the DEIR received during the public review period have been adequately
responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the FEIR. Any significant effects
described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the standard conditions and
mitigation measures described in the FEIR.
4. The analysis contained in the DEIR and FEIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures
represents the independent judgment and analysis of thpCity.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 47
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 3180)
mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring
programs:
The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made
to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant
effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been
required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a
public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project,
that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare
and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other
material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
A public agency shall provide the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents
which address required mitigation measures or in the case of the adoption of a plan,
policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the
plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report (EIR)
or mitigated negative declaration (MND), a responsible agency, or a public agency
having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to
the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures
which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the
responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the
project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference
documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible
agency or an agency ;having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project
shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to
the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or
noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural
resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the
responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a
project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as
provided by this division or any other provision of law.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 1
,,_4
II. Mitigation Monitoring Procedures
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to
be followed by the City of Newport Beach (City) to ensure that all mitigation measures
adopted as part of the proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan will be carried out as
described in this EIR.
Table A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this EIR and identifies the party or
parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 2
tir
Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 3
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (POFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
WE
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 Construction Relations Officer. Prior to commencement of
City of Newport
Prior to commencement
grading activities, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of
Beach Director of
of grading activities
Public Works, or designee, shall designate a construction
Public Works
relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-
site construction activity and air quality emissions- and noise-
related matters. The City shall post the name of the contact
person and contact information for complaints in a publicly
visible location for the duration of construction activities.
PDF TRA-1: Pedestrian Overcrossing. The pedestrian overcrossing
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of a
linking the northern and central parcels shall be a minimum of
Beach Director of
building permit
19.5 feet (ft ) above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive.
Public Works
Mitigation Measure 4.2.1: Bayside Drive. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
of Newport Beach (City) Director of Public Works or designee
Beach Director of
a building permit
shall identify a future project in the City's Capital
Public Works or
Improvement Program that will include restriping the
designee
northbound Bayside Drive approach to the East Coast
Highway intersection from two left -turn lanes and a shared
left/through/right lane to two left turns, a shared left/through
lane and a right-turn lane. These required improvements shall
be implemented within 1 year of when traffic counts
completed on behalf of the City in accordance with the
schedule for traffic counts provided for in the City's Traffic
Phasing Ordinance result in the finding that the intersection is
operating at, or over, an Intersection Capacity Utilization
(ICU) of 0.90.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Construction Area Traffic Management Plan, Prior to
City of Newport
Prior to commencement
commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport
Beach Director of
of grading activities
Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall review and
Public Works or
approve a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan for the
designee
proposed project. The Plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and shall address traffic control for any
temporaD�/ street closures, detours, or other disruptions to
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 3
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall
identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to
access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic
controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking
areas for the project. The Plan shall specifically prohibit the
use of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and
Newport Center Drive as part of the haul route for removal of
excess dirt from the project site. The Plan shall also require
project contractors to keep all haul routes clean and free of
debris including, but not limited to, gravel and dirt. The City of
Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall
verify that the Construction Contractor's Agreement requires
the construction contractor to comply with the Construction
Area Traffic Management Plan.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.3: Sight Distance Analysis. Prior to issuance of building
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
permits, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works
Beach Director of
building permits
or designee shall verify that a detailed sight distance analysis
Public Works or
for the proposed project driveway along Avocado Avenue has
designee
been prepared. The sight distance analysis shall be prepared
according to the City of Newport Beach Sight Distance
Standards and guidelines and shall include provisions for
dedicated limited use areas (i.e., low- height landscaping) and
on- street parking restrictions (i.e., red curb), if necessary. The
sight distance analysis report shall also verify the required
height of the pedestrian bridge (19.5 feet above the ground
surface of San Miguel Drive) as specified in PDF TRA -1. The
recommendations of the sight distance analysis shall be
incorporated into final project design to ensure than an
unobstructed view of the intersections and traffic control
devices would be provided. The findings of the sight distance
analysis shall be included in a report subject to review and
approval by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public
Works, or designee.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 4
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 5
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
PDF AES-1: Lighting Controls. The proposed project shall include
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
(1) automated internal shades set to close at specific times in
Beach Planning
building permits
the City Hall administration building and in the Library
Director or specified
expansion area to form part of the glare control strategy, as
designee
well as to assist in the reduction of nighttime light pollution to
neighboring sites; (2) exterior lighting that will be controlled by
a Lighting Control Panel with an exterior photo-control and
time clock; (3) internal lighting systems that would auto-dim
after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for
janitorial activities and to light areas where staff may be
working late; and (4) exterior light fixtures that would be the
cutoff type and dark sky compliant.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1: Comprehensive Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of any
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a
Beach Planning
any building permits
comprehensive lighting plan for review and approval by the
Director or specified
City of Newport Beach Planning Director or designee. The
designee
lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and
shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the City of
Newport Beach General Plan Municipal Code. The lighting
plan shall address all aspects of lighting, including
infrastructure, on-site driveways, recreation, safety, signage,
and promotional lighting, if any. The lighting plan shall include
the following in conjunction with other measures, as
determined by the illumination engineer:
a. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined
within site boundaries.
b. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public
streets or adjacent sites.
c. "Walipalk" type fixtures are not permitted.
d. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures, and
light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height.
e. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 5
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 6
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
illumination recommendations of the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion
of the City of Newport Beach Planning Director, the
illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on
surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The
City of Newport Beach Planning Director or designee
may order the dimming of light sources or other
remediation upon finding that the site is excessively
illuminated.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2: Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any building
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
permits, a photometric study shall be prepared in conjunction
Beach Planning
any building permits
with a final lighting plan for approval by the City of Newport
Director
Beach Planning Director. The survey shall show that lighting
values are 1 footcandle or less at all property lines.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.3: Lighting Inspection. Prior to issuance of the certificate of
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
occupancy or final building permits, an evening inspection
Beach Code and
final building permits or
shall be conducted by the City of Newport Beach Code and
Water Quality
the certificate of
Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light
Enforcement Division
occupancy
and glare.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. The City of Newport Beach
City of Newport
Prior to the
shall ensure that the project complies with South Coast Air
Beach Planning
commencement of
Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403
Director or designee
grading activities
to assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule
403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best
available control measures so that the presence of such dust
does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent
fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust
suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized
below. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or
designee shall ensure that notes are included on grading and
construction plans and referenced in the construction
contractor's agreement that the construction contractor shall
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 6
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
be responsible for compliance with Rules 402 and 403.
The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or
more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where
grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to
earthmoving.)
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
are to be covered or should maintain at least 2 feet (ft) of
freeboard in accordance with the requirements of
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard
means vertical space between the top of the load and top
of the trailer).
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 ft onto the
site from main road.
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to
15 miles er hour (mph) or less.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: Dust Suppression. Prior to commencement of grading
City of Newport
Prior to commencement
activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning
Beach Planning
of grading activities
Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included
Director or designee
on construction and grading plans and referenced in the
contractor's agreement that requires use of dust suppression
measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air
Quality Handbook during project grading and construction.
The construction contractor shall be responsible for the
implementation of the following dust suppression measures:
• Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 7
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 8
11
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
i Mitigation Measure
• Increase active site watering to three times daily.
• All excavating and grading operations shall be
suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
• When visible soil materials are carried to adjacent
streets, those streets shall be swept once per day to the
extent necessary to remove the visible soil material
(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any
equipment leaving the site each trip.
• All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible,
watered periodically, or chemically stabilized.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or
excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: Construction Equipment. Prior to commencement of
City of Newport
Prior to commencement
grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach
Beach Public Works
of grading activities
Public Works Department or designee shall ensure that
Director or designee
construction documents require the Construction Contractor
to select the construction equipment used on site based on
low- emission factors and high- energy efficiency. Prior to
commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City
of Newport Beach Public Works Department, or designee,
shall also verify that construction contracts include a
statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.___
Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: Electric or Alternative Fuel- Powered Equipment. Prior to
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of
Beach Public Works
a Notice to Proceed
Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall
Director or designee
verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include
a statement that the Construction Contractor shall utilize
electric or alternative -fuel powered equipment in lieu of
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 8
11
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
gasoline or diesel powered engines where feasible.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5:
Equipment Shut Off and Smog Season Hours. Prior to
City of Newport
issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of
Beach Public Works
Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall
Director or designee
verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include
a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not
in use. During smog season (May through October), the
overall length of the construction period will be extended to
minimize the occurrence of vehicles and equipment operating
at the same time and thereby decreasing the size of the area
prepared each da .
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6:
Traffic Obstruction Minimization. Prior to issuance of a
City of Newport
Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach
Beach Public Works
Public Works Department shall verify that construction
Director or designee
contracts andlor grading plans include a statement that
construction trucks, to the extent feasible, shall avoid using
the streets during peak -hour traffic; if necessary, a flagperson
shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadwa s.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.7:
Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to issuance of a
City of Newport
Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach
Beach Public Works
Public Works Department shall verify that construction
Director or designee
contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the
Construction Contractor shall support and encourage
ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.8:
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
City of Newport
Rule 1113. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the
Beach Public Works
Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works
Director or designee
Department or designee shall verify that construction
contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that the
Construction Contractor shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule
1113 on the use of architectural coatings. Emissions
associated with architectural coatings would be reduced by
complying with these rules and regulations, which include
using pre - coated /natural colored building materials, using
water -based or low- volatile organic compounds
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
of
a Notice to Proceed
of
a Notice to Proceed
Prior to the issuance of
a Notice to Proceed
Prior to the issuance of
a Notice to Proceed
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 9
J
J
t I)ttp: / /www.cal- ipc.org/ip /inventory/index.php.
J
00
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 10
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
(VOC) coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment
with hi h transfer efficiency,
p .J 4, {�tI
4t4i. i:a[ fA7 01 r�F sgv u §." ibi i CI .1 °fl fi i' t� v}w �iCsH9� Eifl',
t
itlNti, 4
iat i
.
PDF BIO -1: Removal of Invasive Exotic Plants. Invasive exotic plant
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
species (e.g., myoporum, castor bean, pampas
Beach Public Works
building permits
grass) associated with the wetland /riparian habitat shall be
Director or designee
removed, and mulefat and willow cuttings and other
appropriate lant species shall be installed.
PDF WO -2: Native Plants. The landscaping palette to be used on site
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
shall include the use of native plant species in addition to
Beach Public Works
building permits
drought tolerant, ornamental, and turf species. The
Director or designee
landscaping palette shall also prohibit the use of invasive
exotic plants (i.e., those plant species rated as "High" or
"Moderate" in the California Invasive Plant Council's [Cal -IPC]
Invasive Plant Inventory). '
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1: Translocation of Coulter's Saltbush Population. Prior to
City of Newport
Prior to commencement
approval of the grading plan, the City of Newport Beach (City)
Beach Director of
of grading activities
Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a
Planning or designee
translocation plan for Coulter's saltbush has been prepared
by a qualified, experienced biologist. The plan shall include
the following elements:
• Location of one or two suitable receptor site(s), in an
area or areas of suitable habitat, with adequate size to
accommodate the existing population, as well as future
growth of the population.
• Procedures for site preparation and translocation of the
existing population.
• Preparation for and methods of salvaging and
translocating the existing population, including the
recovery of topsoil with existing seed bank. Blocks of
topsoil shall be moved intact to the extent feasible.
t I)ttp: / /www.cal- ipc.org/ip /inventory/index.php.
J
00
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 10
A
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
• Identification of performance standards, i.e., at least half
(nine) of the plants are evident in any given year following
the third year of the monitoring period. This mitigation
standard may be adjusted any time prior to the end of the
monitoring period under mutual agreement by the City
and the resource agencies (i.e., United States Fish and
Wildlife Service [ USFWS] and California Department of
Fish and Game [CDFG]), particularly if factors beyond
human control limit the ability to establish a viable
population of Coulter's saltbush within the 5 -year
monitoring period.
• Maintenance and monitoring provisions (for a minimum of
5 years) to promote and document the success of the
effort.
• Measures to be implemented if the translocation effort
does not achieve the expected results. If it becomes
apparent that the performance standards cannot be
achieved, the City and resource agencies may agree to
extend the monitoring period and /or implement remedial
measures.
The plan shall be prepared in cooperation with
representatives from the USFWS and the CDFG. The project
biologist shall supervise and monitor implementation of the
plan, which shall be initiated prior to grading in the affected
habitat area. Once the population of Coulter's saltbush on site
is transplanted to the suitable receptor site(s), the project
biologist shall monitor the population, in accordance with the
plan provisions, including implementation of any requisite
maintenance and /or remedial measures and documenting the
ro ress in annual re orts.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that project
City of Newport
Prior to commencement
construction or grading activities should occur within the
Beach Director of
of any grading
active breeding season for birds (i.e., February 15— August
Planning or designee
activities; and also prior
15), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted b the
to commencement of
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page I t
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
designated project biologist prior to commencement of
construction activities
construction activities. If active nesting of birds is observed
within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to
construction, the construction crew shall establish an
appropriate buffer around the active nest. The designated
project biologist shall determine the buffer distance based on
the specific nesting bird species and circumstances involved.
Once the designated project biologist verifies that the birds
have fledged from the nest, the buffer may be removed. Prior
to commencement of grading activities or issuance of any
building permits, the City of Newport Beach Director of
Planning, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and
construction plans include specific documentation regarding
the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA),
that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the
results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if
needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field
with orange snow fencing.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 12
i
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3: Wetland /Riparian Habitat Enhancement. Prior to the
City of Newport
Prior to the
commencement of grading activities associated with the
Beach Director of
commencement of
central parcel, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of
Planning or designee
grading activities
Planning, or designee, shall verify that grading plans require
associated with the
the installation of orange snow fencing along the entire
central parcel
construction perimeter of the jurisdictional drainages. The
City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee,
shall also verify that the City has contracted a qualified,
experienced biologist to be present on site when the orange
snow fence is installed to ensure that it is installed at the
appropriate location outside of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional limits. The orange snow
fencing shall be maintained and left in place until all
construction activities in the Central Parcel are complete. The
biological monitor shall be present during any grading or
vegetation removal activities occurring within 300 feet of the
orange snow fencing. Prior to removal of the orange snow
fencing at the completion of construction activities in the
central parcel, the biological monitor shall conduct a final
inspection of the area. The biological monitor shall, as
necessary, maintain direct contact with the City
representative. throughout the construction progess.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion
City of Newport
Prior to the
NCCP /HCP. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Beach Director of
commencement of
City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the terms and
Planning or designee
grading activities
conditions of the Orange County Central and Coastal
Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat
Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) Implementation Agreement
and construction minimization measures identified in the
NCCP. The following five minimization measures, as outlined
in the NCCP, are designed to reduce potential impacts
associated with native habitat and associated general wildlife
and are applicable to the proposed project site.
1. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal
sa a scrub CSS habitat that is occu ied I Westin
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 13
9
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season
(February 15 —July 15). It is expressly understood that this
provision and the remaining provisions of these
'construction- related minimization measures' are subject
to public health and safety considerations. These
considerations include unexpected slope stabilization,
erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs.
In the event of such public health and safety
circumstances, landowners or public agencieslutilities
shall provide the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service /California Department of Fish and Game
(USFWS /CDFG) with the maximum practicable notice (or
such notice as is specified in the NCCP /HCP) to allow for
capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other
CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed
and shall carry out the following measures only to the
extent as practicable in the context of the public health
and safety considerations.
2. Prior to the commencement of grading operations or
other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all
areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions
of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary
fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction
personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of
grading operations or other activities involving
disturbance of CSS, a survey shall be conducted to
locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of
the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities,
and the locations of any such species shall be clearly
marked and identified on the construction /grading plans.
3. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS /CDFG,
shall be on site during any clearing of CSS. The City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall
advise USFWS /CDFG at least 7 calendar days (and
preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of an
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 14
a
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow USFWS/
CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection
with bird flushing/capture activities. The monitoring
biologist shall flush Identified Species (avian or other
mobile Identified Species) from occupied habitat areas
immediately prior to brush - clearing and earth- moving
activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they shall be
captured in mist nets, if feasible, and relocated to areas
of the site to be protected or to the NCCP /HCP Reserve
System. It shall be the responsibility of the monitoring
biologist to assure that Identified bird species will not be
directly impacted by brush- clearing and earth - moving
equipment in a manner that also allows for construction
activities on a timely basis.
4. Following the completion of initial grading /earth
movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be
avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall
be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate
markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No
construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or
materials will be permitted within such marked areas.
5. CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and
located within the likely dust drift radius of construction
areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce
accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the
monitorin biolo is t.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1 Archaeological and Native American Monitors. Prior to
City of Newport
Prior to
commencement of any grading activity on site, the City shall
Beach Director of
commencement of any
retain an archaeological monitor and a Native American
Public Works or
grading activity on site
monitor to be selected by the City after consultation with
designee
interested Tribal and Native American representatives. Both
monitors shall be present at the pregrade conference in order
to explain the cultural mitigation measures associated with
the project. Both monitors shall be present on site during all
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 15
rj
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
ground - disturbing activities (to implement the project
Monitoring Plan) until marine terrace deposits are
encountered. Once marine terrace deposits are encountered,
archaeological and Native American monitoring is no longer
necessary, as the marine deposits are several hundred
thousand years old, significantly predating human settlement
in this area.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental
City of Newport
Prior to the
Discovery. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on
Beach Director of
commencement of
site, the City shall prepare a Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring
Planning or designee
grading activities
Plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and shall
be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Director of
Planning. The Monitoring Plan should include at a minimum:
(1) a list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
(2) a description of how the monitoring shall occur; (3) a
description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full -time, part-
time, spot checking); (4) a description of what resources may
be encountered; (5) a description of circumstances that would
result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., what is
considered a "significant" archaeological site); (6) a
description of procedures for halting work on site and
notification procedures; and (7) a description of monitoring
reporting procedures. If any significant historical resources,
archaeological resources, or human remains are found during
monitoring, work should stop within the immediate vicinity
(precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the
field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be
evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate
individuals. Project personnel shall not collect or move any
archaeological materials or human remains and associated
materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid
these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the
archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility
for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. If the
deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the
de osits are eli ible, adverse effects on the deposits must be
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 16
A
F
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can
include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the
deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see
California Code of Regulations Title 4(3) Section
5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods
and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of
recovered archaeological materials; production of a report
detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the
archaeological site and associated materials; curation of
archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future
research and /or display; an interpretive display of recovered
archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library;
and public lectures at local schools and /or historical societies
on the findings and significance of the site and recovered
archaeological materials.
It shall be the responsibility of the City Department of Public
Works to verify that the Monitoring Plan is implemented
during project grading and construction. Upon completion of
all monitoring /mitigation activities, the consulting
archaeologist shall submit a monitoring report to the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning and to the South Central
Coastal Information Center summarizing all monitoring/
mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended
mitigation measures have been met. The monitoring report
shall be prepared consistent with the guidelines of the Office
of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resources
Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or
designee shall be responsible for reviewing any reports
produced by the archaeologist to determine the
appropriateness and adequacy of findings and
recommendations.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 Archaeological Site Avoidance. Grading and excavation in
City of Newport
Prior to the
the vicinity of existing archaeological sites CA- ORA- 167/1117
Beach Director of
commencement of
and CA -ORA -1461 shall be avoided. To achieve level
i Public Works or
gading activities
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 17
lH
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
surfaces for proposed project paths, clean (culturally
designee
sterile) soils shall be used to cap and protect the sites.
Capping shall be conducted consistent with the provisions of
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2(b)(3 and 4).
Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of
Newport Beach Director of Public Works shall verify that
project grading plans show avoidance of existing cultural
sites. The Director of Public Works shall also verify that
grading plans show that the known cultural sites shall be
capped with a minimum of 12 inches of culturally sterile soils
from a known source prior to commencement of any
grading activity within 25 feet of these sites. The boundaries
of the site shall be identified by a qualified archaeologist to
ensure the entire site has been capped. Precise
archaeological site information is protected from public
disclosure by State law. The grading plan shall be clearly
marked to indicate that any cultural resources information on
those plans is not for public distribution.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program.
City of Newport
Prior to the
Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the
Beach Director of
commencement of
Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a
Planning or designee
grading activities
paleontologist, who is listed on the County of Orange list of
certified paleontologists, has been retained and will be on site
during all rough grading and other significant ground -
disturbing activities in paleontologically sensitive sediments.
The sensitive sediments that have been identified within the
project include the Middle Pleistocene marine and terrestrial
sediments as well as middle Miocene Monterey formation
sediments. A paleontologist will not be required on site if
excavation is only occurring in artificial fill.
The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources
Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed project.
The PRIMP should be consistent with the guidelines of
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP) (1995) and
should include but not be limited to the following:
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 18
U
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
• Attendance at the pregrade conference in order to
explain the mitigation measures associated with the
project.
• During construction excavation, a qualified vertebrate
paleontological monitor shall initially be present on a full -
time basis whenever excavation will occur within the
sediments that have a High paleontological sensitivity
rating and on a spot -check basis in sediments that have a
Low sensitivity rating. Based on the significance of any
recovered specimens, the qualified paleontologist may
set up conditions that will allow for monitoring to be
scaled back to part-time as the project progresses.
However, if significant fossils begin to be recovered after
monitoring has been scaled back, conditions shall also be
specked that would allow increased monitoring as
necessary. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage
fossils and /or matrix samples as they are unearthed in
order to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be
empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in the
area of the find in order to allow removal of abundant or
large specimens.
• The underlying sediments may contain abundant fossil
remains that can only be recovered by a screening and
picking matrix; therefore, these sediments shall be
occasionally be spot- screened through one - eighth to one -.
twentieth -inch mesh screens to determine
whether microfossils exist. If microfossils are
encountered, additional sediment samples (up to 6,000
pounds) shall be collected and processed through one -
twentieth -inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils.
Processing of large bulk samples is best accomplished at
a designated location within the project that will
be accessible throughout the project duration but will also .
be away from any proposed cut or fill areas. Processing
I�
J
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 19
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Timing for PDF or
Responsible Party Mitigation Measure
is usually completed concurrently with construction, with
the intent to have all processing completed before, or just
after, project completion. A small corner of a staging or
equipment parking area is an ideal location. If water is not
available, the location should be accessible for a water
truck to occasionally fill containers with water.
• Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of
identification and permanent preservation. This includes
the washing and picking of mass samples to recover
small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils and the removal
of surplus sediment from around larger specimens to
reduce the volume of storage for the repository and the
storage cost for the developer.
• Identification and curation of specimens into a museum
repository with permanent, retrievable storage, such as
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
(LACM).
• Preparation of a report of findings with an appended,
itemized inventory of specimens. When submitted to the
City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee,
the report and inventory would signify completion of the
program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
I
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 20
9
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure 4.6.5 Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of
The City of Newport
During all grading and
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), if
Beach Director of
ground disturbing
human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the
Planning or specified
activities
discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified
designee
immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County
,
Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, the County
Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most
likely descendant (MLD). With the permission of the City of
Newport Beach, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection within 48
hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are
determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the
City of Newport Beach shall consult with the MLD as
identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the
treatment and disposition of the remains.
Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting
archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the
methods and results and provide recommendations regarding
the treatment of the human remains and any associated
cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the
recommendations of the MLD. The report should be
submitted to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning
and the South Central Coastal Information Center, The City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall be
responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the
archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and
ade uac of findin s and recommendations.
.. . V"
kFi.J 'Y ;:,,^.,k' _
v_.
_P-''
aN -: �s t
<RT
:e..' z k#.. ", r..
ti..'5
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 21
193
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 Incorporation of and compliance with the
The Director of the
Prior to the
recommendations in the Geotechnical Study. All grading
City of Newport
commencement of
operations and construction shall be conducted in
Beach Building
grading activities
conformance with the recommendations included in the
Department or
geotechnical report on the proposed project site that has
specified designee
been prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. titled
Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Half and Park
Development Plan for the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), Newport Beach, California (July 2009) (included in
Appendix K of this EIR). Design, grading, and construction
shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of
the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California
Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the
recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as
summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the
Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or
designee prior to commencement of grading activities.
i
Recommendations in the Geotechnical Study for the
Proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan for the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach,
California are summarized below.
• Site Grading. The subgrade below the planned
foundations for buildings and improvements planned in
the area of the Library expansion shall be overexcavated
in order to provide uniform support for the buildings.
Additional remedial grading shall be required to develop
relatively uniform support characteristics and reduce the
potential for postconstruction swell and distortions to the
building in areas where claystone is exposed.
• Shoring. Shoring shall be required during excavation for
the retaining wall proposed along MacArthur Boulevard
due to the anticipated space constraint for slope lay back
and adverse bedrock structure. Design parameters of the
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 22
11
y
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
temporary shoring and retaining wall shall be based on
the bedrock strike and dip and the final configuration of
the wall. In addition, the retaining wall shall be designed
to include possible geologic surcharge from the bedrock.
Shoring systems feasible for the site are expected to
include cantilever shoring such as soldier piles and
lagging in conjunction with tiebacks in areas when the
depth of excavation exceeds 10 to 15 feet (ft).
• Dewatering, If groundwater or perched water is
encountered during project grading and construction,
dewatering may be necessary. Methods of dewatering
shall be submitted by the contractor and reviewed and
approved by the geotechnical consultant and City
Building Official prior to commencement of grading
activities.
• Subsurface Drainage. Groundwater is not expected to
be a project constraint. In the unlikely event groundwater
is encountered during construction and is at a depth that
would impact project structures (postconstruction), the
subterranean slabs shall be designed to resist hydrostatic
uplift, or a permanent subfloor drainage system shall be
included in the design of the slab. The design of
subterranean slabs shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Building Official prior to issuance of building
permits.
• Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations
shall be treated in accordance with the State of California
version of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) excavation regulations, Construction Safety
Orders for Excavation General Requirements. The sides
of excavations shall be shored or sloped in accordance
with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of
unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 ft,
to be cut to a'' /,H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A
soils, 1 H:1 V for Type B soils, and 1.51-11V for Type C
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 23
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
soils. The on -site soils (Terrace Deposits) within the
proposed excavation depths generally conform to OSHA
Soil Type B. The formational bedrock may be classified
as Soil Type A but will require careful evaluation by the
project Certified Engineering Geologist. The Type A
classification is not recommended where adverse (out -of-
slope) bedding orientations exist, and special site - specific
design parameters will be required in those areas. Heavy
construction loads, such as those resulting from
stockpiles and heavy machinery, shall be kept a minimum
distance equivalent to the excavation height or 5 ft,
whichever is greater, from the excavation unless the
excavation is shored and these surcharges are
considered in the design of the shoring system.
• Spread Footing Foundations. Upon completion of the
grading (cutting) required to establish the proposed
building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be
supported by a spread footing foundation system.
Bearing capacities shall be dependent on the final
foundation elevation and structural loadings of the
buildings and shall be reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant prior to implementation.
• Slab on Grade. At -grade floor slabs of the proposed
structures may be designed and constructed as a slab -
on -grade supported directly on properly compacted fill or
competent bedrock. If a bedrock artificial fill transition is
encountered, the planned subgrade elevation shall be
overexcavated at least 3 ft and replaced with properly
compacted fill. The structural engineer shall design the
slab and determine the required thickness and
reinforcement based on structural load requirements.
• Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected
to require various types of earth - retaining structures: free-
standing cantilever retaining walls; temporary shoring;
and below grade walls for several of the proposed
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 24
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 25
IA
N
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
structures. In general, free - standing retaining structures
planned at the site shall be backfilled with granular, very
low expansive soil and be constructed with a backdrain.
• Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional
site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted
by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and
enhance these recommendations. Grading plan review
shall also be conducted by the project geotechnical
consultant and the Director of the City of Newport Beach
Building Department or designee prior to the start of
grading to verify that the recommendations developed
during the geotechnical design evaluation have been
appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Final
design shall be based on testing and analyses of the
near - surface soils following the completion of grading.
Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in
accordance with the specifications of the project
geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report
based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and
building and the City of Newport Beach Building Code.
On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by
the project geotechnical consultant and the City Building
Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into ro'ect plans.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 California Building Code Compliance and Seismic
The Director of the
Prior to the
Standards. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed
City of Newport
commencement of
in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the
Beach Building
grading activities
geotechnical study (Leighton, 2009; Appendix K) and
Department or
applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2007 California
specified designee
Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for
planned structures, the project soils engineer and the Director
of the City of Newport Beach Department of Building, or
designee, shall review building plans to verify that structural
design conforms to the recommendations of the geotechnical
study and the City of Newport Beach Building Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.3 Corrosive Soils. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
The Director of the
Prior to the
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 25
IA
N
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 26
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building
City of Newport
commencement of
Department or designee shall verify that the City has retained
Beach Building
grading activities
the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide
Department or
detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may
specified designee
come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall
include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion.
Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to,
sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and /or
cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design
evaluation regarding the possible presence of significant
volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the
project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these
recommendations. On -site inspection during grading shall be
conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City
Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.4 Expansive Soils. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
The Director of the
I Prior to the
Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building
City of Newport
commencement of
Department or designee shall verify that building plans
Beach Building
! grading activities
require additional expansion index tests if bedrock claystone
Department or
is encountered at the planned subgrade elevation or during
specified designee
other grading activities. If expansion index tests determine
that expansive soils are present on the proposed project site,
mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional
remedial grading, premoistening of soils, use of
nonexpansive material, post- tensioned slabs, construction of
nonexpansive building pads, or use of caisson foundations.
During construction, the project soils engineer shall verify that
expansive soil mitigation measures are implemented, and the
City Building Official shall make site inspections to ensure
com liance with approved measures.
PDF GHG -1 LEED -NC Silver. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall work
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
with the project designers and engineers to identify United
Beach Director of
building permits
States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Public Works or
Environmental Design-New Construction (L ED-
des' nee
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 26
I�
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
NC) Silver credit design components to be incorporated into
the construction plans for the proposed project, including both
the City Hall administration building, Community Room,
Council Chambers, and Emergency Operations Center
(EOC). The City shall register the subject buildings in the
LEED -NC Silver program prior to final design and shall seek
LEED -NC Silver certification after construction.
PDF GHG -2 Energy Efficiency. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
seek ways to reduce waste and energy consumption and to
Beach Director of
building permits
increase the efficiency of its operations in order to minimize
Public Works or
impacts to the environment and enhance the sustainability of
designee
its operations. Toward that end, the City has incorporated the
following commitments into the project plans:
1. The City is committed to evaluating and implementing
energy efficiency programs and procedures, including the
use of solar photovoltaic panels on new structures where
feasible, use of energy- efficient light fixtures,
implementation of energy- saving devices and equipment,
and energy- efficient design of new facilities.
2. The City will continue to implement existing waste
reduction programs, including office recycling, source
reduction, waste reduction and reuse, purchase of
recycled content products, and source separation and
recycling of materials, including composting of
biodegradable materials.
3. The City is committed to achieving Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design -New Construction (LEED-
NC) Silver certification for the new City Hall facility and
EmeTency Operations Center EOC see Project
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 27
Commissioning is a systematic process to help ensure building systems are designed, installed, tested, performed, and capable of being operated
and maintained according to owner's operational needs. The commissioning process documents the quality of building system performance and
facilitates improved building operation without requiring any major renovations.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 28
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
Design Feature [PDF] GHG -1, above).
4. The City will conduct regular energy audits, and
commissioning' during new construction and renovation,
as appropriate, with implementation of follow -up
improvements to reduce energy consumption for the new
City Hall facility and the Emergency Operation Center
(EOC).
5. The City will require contractors to use zero- or low -
emission vehicles and equipment when possible.
6. The City will landscape the proposed project site with a
combination of native, drought - tolerant, and ornamental
plants (refer to PDF BIO 2).
7. The City will implement a comprehensive potable water
conservation strategy for irrigation and water service
within the City Hall facility and the Emergency Operations
Center (EOC).
8. The City will continue to seek new opportunities to
promote commuter carpooling and transit use, as well as
;
alternative transportation for City employees and Civic
Center visitors.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.1 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
plans and specifications shall include a statement that
Beach Director of
grading or building
delivery of construction equipment and materials will be
Planning or designee
permits
scheduled such that queuing of trucks on and off site shall be
minimized. The requirement will be implemented by the
contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director
of Planning, or designee.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.2 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
I
tans and specifications shall include a statement that, to the
Beach Director of
grading or buildin
Commissioning is a systematic process to help ensure building systems are designed, installed, tested, performed, and capable of being operated
and maintained according to owner's operational needs. The commissioning process documents the quality of building system performance and
facilitates improved building operation without requiring any major renovations.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 28
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 24
A
J
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
extent feasible, all diesel- and gasoline - powered construction
Planning or designee
permits
equipment shall be replaced with equivalent electric
equipment. The requirement will be implemented by the
contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director
of Planning, or desi nee.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or
Beach Director of
grading or building
structures incorporates ENERGY STAR - rated, energy-
Planning or designee
permits
efficient T -8 high- output fixtures, and /or compact fluorescent
and other comparable energy- saving lighting fixtures.
Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be
provided by the project engineer to the State Architect.
Installation of the identified design features or equipment will
be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of
Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a specific facility, the
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of any
project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of the
Beach Director of
building permits;
proposed buildings or structures incorporates enhanced
Planning or designee
installation of the
insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is
features to be
minimized in structures that will be mechanically heated
confirmed prior to
and /or cooled. Documentation of compliance with this
issuance of a certificate
measure shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach
of occupancy
Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval.
Installation of the identified design features or equipment will
be conducted by the contractor and confirmed by the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City of
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of a
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, and the
Beach Director of
certificate of occupancy
Project Engineer will document and verify, installation of the
Planning or designee
identified design features or equipment designed to limit air
leakage through the structure or within the heating and
cooling distribution system to minimize energy consumption
in structures that will be mechanical) heated and/or cooled.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of an
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 24
A
J
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 30
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or
Beach Director of
building permits;
structures incorporates United States Environmental Policy
Planning or designee
installation of the
Agency (EPA) WaterSense Program water- efficient products
features to be
(bathroom sink faucets, low -flush urinals, dual -flush toilets,
confirmed prior to
etc.). Documentation of compliance with this measure shall
issuance of a certificate
be provided to the City of Newport Beach Director of
of occupancy
Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of
the identified design features or equipment will be confirmed
by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or
designee, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or
Beach Director of
building permits;
structures that will be mechanically heated and /or cooled
Planning or designee
installation of the
incorporates space heating and cooling equipment that meets
features to be
or exceeds ENERGY STAR -rated standards. Documentation
confirmed prior to
of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the
issuance of a certificate
project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of
of occupancy
Planning, or designee. Installation of the identified design
features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.8 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings or structures
Beach Director of
building permits;
incorporate appliances that meet or exceed the ENERGY
Planning or designee
installation of the
STAR -rated standards. Documentation of compliance with
features to be
this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the
confirmed prior to
City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for
issuance of a certificate
review and approval. Installation of the identified design
of occupancy
features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.9 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
shall demonstrate that the design of proposed buildings or
Beach Director of
building permits
structures considered installation/operation of renewable
Planning or designee
electric generation systems. Documentation of compliance
with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 30
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 31
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee,
for review and approval. Installation of the identified design
features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of
Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.10 The City will ensure that construction plans for the new City
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
Hall facility include bicycle racks and temporary storage
Beach Director of
building permits and
lockers., as reflected in the building plans prior to the issuance
Planning or designee
following construction
of construction permits. City of Newport Beach Director of
Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and confirm
implementation during construction,
Mitigation Measure 4.8.11 The City shall offer preferential parking for electric and hybrid
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
vehicles at the new City Hall facility. City of Newport Beach
Beach Director of
building permits and
Director of Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and
Planning or designee
following construction
confirm im lementation during construction
.
w, .. -, :. - •- f
Ha z Kd'Iq -',,M ,,
t � � .�,� � � ;-
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading
City of Newport
Prior to the
activities, the City of Newport Beach Fire Chief or designee
Beach Fire Chief or
commencement of
shall review and approve a contingency plan that addresses
designee
grading activities
the potential to encounter on -site unknown hazards or
hazardous substances during construction activities. The plan
shall indicate that if construction workers encounter
underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other
unidentified substances, the contractor shall stop work,
cordon off the affected area, and notify the Orange County
Health Care Agency ( OCHCA). The OCHCA responder shall
determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation,
sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local,
State, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 Predemolition Surveys. Prior to commencement of
Director of the City of
Prior to the
demolition activities, the Director of the City of Newport
Newport Beach
commencement of
Beach (City) Building Department shall verify that
Building Department
demolition activities
predemolition surveys for asbestos - containing materials
of designee
(ACMs) and lead -based paints (LBPs) (including sampling
and analysis of all suspected building materials) and
inspections for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 31
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
electrical fixtures shall be performed. All inspections, surveys,
and analyses shall be performed by appropriately licensed
and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable
regulations (i.e.: American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E 1527 -05, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA],
Part 716), If the predemolition surveys do not find ACMs,
LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures, the inspectors
shall provide documentation of the inspection and its results
to the City of Newport Beach Building Department to confirm
that no further abatement actions are required. If the
predemolition surveys find evidence of ACMs, LBPs, or PCB -
containing electrical fixtures, all such materials shall be
removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately
licensed contractors according to all applicable regulations
during demolition of structures (40 CFR, Subchapter R,
TSCA, Parts 745, 761, and 763). Air monitoring shall be
completed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals
in accordance with applicable regulations both to ensure
adherence to applicable regulations (e.g., South Coast Air
Quality Management District [SCAQMD]) and to provide
safety to workers and the adjacent community. The City shall
provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests,
sampling, and air monitoring analytical results) to the County
of Orange Health Care Agency showing that abatement of
any ACMs, LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures
identified in these structures has been completed in full
compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by
the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter
R, TSCA, Parts 716, 745, 761, 763, and 795 and California
Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Article 2.6), An Operating
& Maintenance Plan (O &M) shall be prepared for any ACM,
LBP, or PCB - containing fixtures to remain in place and will be
reviewed and approved by the County of Orange Health Care
Agency.
Miti ation Measure 4.9.3 Generator Sub -Base Fuel Storage Tank. Prior to issuance
Director of the Cit of
Prior to the issuance of
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 32
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 33
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach
building permits
Building Department or designee shall review installation
Building Department
plans for the generator sub -base fuel storage tank. The plans
or designee
shall include the design, details, and specifications pertaining
to the following:
• Quantities and types of liquids to be stored
I
• Distances from tanks and dispensers to property lines,
buildings, and other exposures
• Vehicle access
• Fire appliance
j
• Vehicle impact protection
i
• Protected tanks and their supports
• Methods of storage and dispensing
• Overfill prevention, spill containment, vents, vapor
recovery dispensers, and other equipment and
accessories
Mitigation Measure 4.9.4 Determination of No Hazards. The City of Newport Beach
City of Newport
Prior to the issuance of
(City) shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or
Beach Director of
building permits
Alteration (Form 7460 -1) with the Federal Aviation
Planning or designee
Administration (FAA) in accordance with Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The Director of Planning, or
designer, shall verify that the City has received a
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to the
issuance of building permits for the northern parce l.
T.; .
i"'H, .,. ,�:::r.# , '-y" ... »,
. ... _,,�.
PDF -WQ -1 State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit Prior
City of Newport
Prior to and during
to and during construction, the City of Newport Beach shall
Beach Director of
construction activities
comply with the requirements of the National Pollution
Public Works of
Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit,
designee
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of
Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 33
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 34
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party_
Mitigation Measure
(Order No. 99- 08 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) and any
subsequent permit as they relate to construction activities.
This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) at least 30 days prior to the start of construction,
preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submission of a Notice of
Termination (NOT) to the Santa Ana RWQCB upon
completion of construction and stabilization of the site. Prior
to construction activities and after the final design phase and
environmental determinations, a construction SWPPP and a
Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be developed for the
project. The construction phase SWPPP shall be designed to
identify potential pollutant sources associated with
construction activities; identify non -storm water discharges;
and identify, implement, and maintain Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated
with the construction site.
PDF -WQ -2 Short-Term Groundwater Discharges. Prior to
commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport
City of Newport
Beach Director of
Prior to the
commencement of
Beach shall determine whether dewatering of groundwater
Public Works of
grading activities
will be necessary during project construction and whether
designee
dewatering activities will require discharge to the storm drain
system or surface waters. If dewatering activities are
required, the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the
requirements of the General National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit/Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDR) for Short-Term Groundwater
Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges (Order
No. R8- 2004 -0021, amended by order R8- 2006 -0065) or
subsequent permit. This will include submission of a Report
of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and Notice of Intent for
coverage under the permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45 days prior to the
start of dewatering and compliance with all applicable
provisions in the permit, including water sampling, analysis,
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 34
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 35
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
and reporting of dewaterin - related discharges.
PDF -WQ -3 Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Best
City of Newport
Prior to the
Management Practices. The City of Newport Beach shall
Beach Director of
commencement of
comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage
Public Works of
grading activities
Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach
designee
Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and the City of Newport
Beach Council Policies and Municipal Code, as they relate to
hydrology and water quality. Project- specific Site Design,
Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) contained in the Final Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) shall be incorporated into final
design. The BMPs shall be properly designed and maintained
to target pollutants of concern and reduce runoff from the
project site. The WQMP shall include an operations and
maintenance plan for the prescribed Treatment Control BMPs
l
to ensure their long-term erformanc_e.
R
:. . 9 i A ft 4 d t S�i1. r :i 6F} _" 'x
�:3i,.. "�, '. �,M.i M b.�id" k [..
,. Ats� tn`�i �.. w.o: ..,.,,-
Mitigation Measure 4.11.1: Construction Noise. Prior to commencement of grading
Director of the City of
Prior to commencement
activities or issuance of building permits, the Director of the
Newport Beach
of grading activities or
City of Newport Beach Planning Department, or designee,
Planning Department
issuance of building
shall verify that the following notes appear on grading and
or designee
permits
construction plans:
1. During all project site excavation and grading, the project
contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed
or mobile, with properly operating and maintained
mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
2. The project contractor shall place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
3. The construction contractor shall locate equipment
staging in areas that will create the greatest distance
between construction - related noise sources and noise -
sensitive receptors nearest the ro'ect site durin all
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 35
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 36
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
project construction.
4. The construction contractor shall limit all construction -
related activities that would result in high noise levels to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction would occur
outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal
holidays.
Mitigation Measure 4.11.2: Ventilation Requirements. Prior to the issuance of building
Director of the City of
Prior to the issuance of
permits, documentation shall be provided to the Director of
Newport Beach
building permits
the City of Newport Beach Building Department, or designee,
Planning Department
demonstrating that project buildings meet ventilation
or designee
standards required by the California Building Code
(CBC) with the windows closed. It is likely that a form of
mechanical ventilation, such as an air - conditioning system,
will be required as part of the project design for the City Hall
buildings and Library expansion.
Mitigation Measure 4.11.3: Park Uses. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Director of the City of
_
Prior to the issuance of
Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department,
Newport Beach
building permits
or designee, shall review construction plans and verify that all
Planning Department
potential sensitive uses proposed within the park areas, such
or designee
as picnic tables, shall be located outside the 70 A- weighted
decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) impact zone from MacArthur Boulevard, which would
extend to 167 feet (ft) from the roadway centerline north of
San Miguel Drive and to 140 ft from the roadway centerline
south of SapnjM,i uel Drive.
`} �. !� . �..A W _�'_. :__C.�tNi�.� : , w. .i }iililid : � �F.'..
i'i+•n'N x2 {'.: � H��l I{}LV.�:aNli{ ii...
There are no otentiall si nificant im acts related to hous�di�n o ulationry, and em to ment, and
no mitigation is required.
.. .. i{ ".:. '._ :_
_'.._ t' :'P.., iii'6' n1ff� {4�2�I!��li
, t
PDF PSU -1: Fire Code. The City.of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the
Director of the City of
Prior to each final
requirements of Title 9 (Fire Code) of the City's Municipal Code
Newport Beach
building inspection
including installation of fire sprinklers in all new buildings. Said
Building Department
sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building inspection.
or designee
PDF PSU -2: Electricity and Natural Gas. The proposed project shall meet or
Director of the City of
Prior to the issuance of
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 36
7
17
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 37
Timing for PDF or
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure
exceed all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport
Newport Beach
building permits
Beach codes in effect at the time of application for building permits.
Building Department
(Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated
or designee
periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new
energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use
of energy - efficient building standards, including ventilation, insulation,
construction, and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning
systems, water heating, and lighting.) Plans submitted for building
permits shall include written notes or calculations demonstrating
compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building
Department prior to issuance of buildinq permits,
PDF PSU -3 Solid Waste. In compliance with State legislation (Assembly Bill [AB)
City of Newport
Ongoing
939), the City of Newport Beach implements programs to recycle,
Beach Director
reduce refuse at the source, and compost solid waste in order
to achieve a 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposed of at
landfills. AB 939 also requires that all cities conduct a Solid Waste
Generation Study (SWGS) and prepare a Source Reduction
Recycling Element (SRRE). In accordance with AB 939, the City of
Newport Beach submits an annual report to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB) summarizing its progress in
diverting solid waste disposal.
PDF PSU -4 Water Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize
Director of the City of
Prior to each final
additional water conservation measures in the proposed Civic Center
Newport Beach
building inspection
which may include, but is not limited to:
Building Department
or designee
• Low -flow faucets
• Dual -flush water - closets and pint (1/8 gallon per flush) urinals
• Drip irrigation where practical
• Project landscaping will include drought - tolerant and native
species combined with ornamental species and turf
• Cooling tower water use reduction via nonchemical water
treatment.
PDF PSU -5 Energy Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize
Director of the Cit of
Prior to each final
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 37
Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures
Responsible Party
Timing for PDF or
Mitigation Measure
additional energy conservation measures in the proposed Civic
Newport Beach
building inspection
Center including, but not limited to:
Building Department
or designee
• High - performance facade
• Mixed -mode active and natural ventilation
• Under -floor air distribution
• Daylight dimming controls
• Low - wattage light fixtures
• Exterior shading devices
• Pro er bu'Id' orientation
A ` cGeatiC "',n {iI 990 .. ,Iilil is = 'ni,lfs! ���, 1,• i:, 11X,,. a,ri.
f
There are no potentially significant impacts related to recreation resources, therefore no Mitigation
_ .,,,,E,
is required.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 38
City Hall and Park Development Plan
E1R Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 9
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLANS FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH
CIVIC CENTER AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Cal. Pub. Res. Code § §21000, et seq.) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA
Guidelines) (14 Cal. Reg. § §15000, et seq.), the City of Newport Beach prepared an
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2009041010) for the Newport
Beach Civic Center and Park Development Plan Project. The purpose of the EIR is to
analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project. The City Council considered and
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on November 24, 2009, by adopting
certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained within Resolution No. which are
hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant
impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or
avoid these impacts to a less- than - significant level. The City Council, in adopting
Resolution No. , has made the findings mandated by CEQA (14 Cal. Reg.
§ §15090 and 15091). In particular, the Council has found that changes or alterations
have been made to the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
.environmental impacts of the project to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identifies two potentially significant
impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to a less- than - significant level with
the adoption of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. In other words, there are
no feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures that would mitigate or
substantially lessen these impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however,
the City Council may approve the project if it adopts a Statement of Overriding
Considerations that explain, in the Council's view, the economic, social, and other
benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations to unavoidable adverse environmental impacts,
attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which
exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 10
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November 2009.
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
Edward Selich
ATTEST:
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 9 f
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CITY HALL AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Introduction
The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and
certification of the Final EIR for the project. As the Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach is
also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and
which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of
mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA
then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against any
remaining significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not
to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows:
CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of
determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave
significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the
project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the
following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted
all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City of Newport Beach also
has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, neither of which meets the Project
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 12
objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed
in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.
The Newport Beach City Council, acting as Lead Agency, and having reviewed the Final EIR for
the City Hail and Park Development Plan project, and reviewed all written materials within the
City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against
its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Although most potential significant project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated,
as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some project
impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures
were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency; however, even with implementation of the
measures, the City finds that the impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant,
For other impacts, no feasible mitigation measures were identified and no feasible alternatives
were identified that would avoid or minimize these impacts. The impacts are described below
and were also addressed in the Findings.
The Final EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project:
1. Construction Air Quality
Construction emissions from the proposed project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for nitrous oxide (NOx) and reactive
organic compounds (ROC), and resulting concentrations of particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter (PM,o) that would exceed the local significance threshold (LST). Mitigation
measures would be required to reduce NOx. ROC, and PM10 emissions; however, even with
implementation of all available mitigation measures, project impacts related to construction
emissions would remain significant adverse and unavoidable.
2. Global Climate Change
The proposed project would strive to reduce GHG emissions by meeting and exceeding Title 24
standards and by achieving LEED -NC Silver Certification. The project would implement
mitigation measures to further reduce energy consumption and vehicular emissions. The City
will monitor the development of implementation requirements of AB 32, as issued by State
agencies, and any subsequently adopted GHG emissions reduction procedures and
technologies relevant to the proposed project, and apply them to the project as appropriate.
The proposed project is consistent with and/or furthers the intent of numerous GHG reduction
strategies and is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and Climate Action Protection
Program strategies, which are designed to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions.
Compliance with the reduction strategies implemented by the City will help to achieve the
statewide reduction of GHG to 1990 levels; however, because project operations would result in
more than 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, it cannot be ensured
that the project would not impede achievement of the State's mandatory requirement under AB
32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 13
result in a significant unavoidable project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable
cumulative impact related to activities that may impede achievement of the State's goal for
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
C. Public Benefits
The City of Newport Beach, in balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and
other benefits of the proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan project, has determined
that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above are considered acceptable
due to the following specific considerations that outweigh the unavoidable, adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
The current City Hall facility was built in 1948 and has become too small for the City's
needs. Office space, storage, and parking are inadequate to meet demand. A Space
Utilization Assessment completed in 2002 found that the existing City Hall was smaller
than the city halls of comparable jurisdictions by between 11 and 25 percent and that
space conditions are functionally and qualitatively below desirable levels. After
completion of the Space Utilization Study, the City added additional temporary buildings
(portable buildings or trailers), but overall the facilities are still considered to be over
capacity. The City has been evaluating a solution to the problem for years. Measure B,
a citizen- sponsored initiative approved by the City's voters, provided a partial solution to
the problem by dictating a site for new city hall facilities. Measure B provided: "Shall the
City of Newport Beach Charter be amended to require City Hall, city administrative
offices and related parking to be located on City property which is bounded by Avocado
Avenue on the west, San Miguel Drive on the north, and MacArthur Boulevard on the
east, and Newport Beach Central Library on the south ?" The proposed project responds
to and implements the community's decision, as reflected in Measure B, that a new City
Hall should be located on City -owned property located between MacArthur Boulevard
and Avocado Avenue.
2. The proposed project would result in the relocation of City Hall (with the exception of the
Fire Department), including all City employees and functions. The proposed project
includes construction and operation of (1) an approximately 98,000- square -foot (sf) City
Hall administration building, Community Room, and Council Chambers; (2) a 450 -space
parking structure; (3) an approximately 17,000 sf expansion of the Newport Beach
Central Library; (4) a dedicated 4,800 sf Emergency Operations Center (EOC); (5) a
Civic Green; (6) construction of a 14.3 -acre public park that includes a dog park,
wetlands area, bridges over the wetlands, lookouts, and a pedestrian overcrossing over
San Miguel Drive; and (7) widening of San Miguel Drive.. Thus, the project will
consolidate public services and would provide an integrated Civic Center Complex to
better serve the needs of the community through enhanced access to City government
buildings and the Central Library.
3. The proposed project will include a Civic Green intended to provide space for community
functions. The Civic Green would be located between the proposed parking structure
and City Hall administration building, directly north of the Library Terrace and Library
expansion, and would be approximately 58,000 sf. The Civic Green will be an asset to
the community and would accommodate events and activities such as children's story
hour, puppet shows, book discussion groups, film screenings, receptions for events and
City Hall and Park Development Plan
ElR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 14
authors, evening dinner events, and Arts Commission events such as plays and art
shows.
4. The proposed project will include development of a 14.3 -acre park site. The proposed
park would be predominantly located on the northern parcel and the northern portion of
the central parcel (north of the Civic Center). The park and Civic Center would be
integrated with appropriate landscaping transitions, pedestrian trails (trail heads), and
signage. Access to the park would occur via pedestrian walkways that would meander
through the park, leading visitors to various park features. The central portion of the
proposed park, located south of San Miguel Drive and north of the proposed City Hall
structures, would be organized around the existing wetland area and the steep slopes
that form its sides. Grading limits are included in the site plan to preserve and protect the
wetlands. Two steel pedestrian footbridges and one precast concrete pedestrian
footbridge would span the wetlands areas connecting level areas of ground across the
lowland area between them.
5. A pedestrian overcrossing (i.e., a bridge over San Miguel Drive) would connect the north
and central parcels. The pedestrian overcrossing would include stairs and an elevator on
the central parcel side of the bridge and an ADA- compliant ramp on the northern parcel
side of the bridge. The bottom of the pedestrian overcrossing would be approximately 20
ft above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive. Site circulation would be consistent
with the requirements of the ADA and would feature accessible paths made of stabilized
decomposed granite paving or asphalt that connects the various usable levels of the
site. These aspects of the design further General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate
Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide
park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails,
with consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs. In addition to the
trail, the park would accommodate multiple other uses, including a dog recreational area.
6. The Project will construct needed transportation infrastructure improvements. The
proposed project includes improvements to San Miguel Drive, focusing on the segment
between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Although these intersections
operate at acceptable levels of service, this segment of road has experienced
operational issues due to the relatively short distance between these intersections and
the relatively high number of turning movements. The improvements are proposed to
provide additional capacity for the heavy afternoon eastbound left turn onto MacArthur
Boulevard to reduce the amount of signal -cycle time necessary for traffic movements
opposing the heavy westbound left turn onto Avocado Avenue. These physical
improvements are proposed to supplement the recently implemented traffic signal
coordination program in order to improve the operational efficiency of these
intersections.
Through widening San Miguel Drive, the following geometric improvements would be
provided:
• A third eastbound left -turn lane from San Miguel Drive onto MacArthur Boulevard
• A third eastbound through lane at San Miguel Drive /Avocado Avenue
• A de facto eastbound right -turn lane from San Miguel Drive onto MacArthur
Boulevard
• A de facto westbound right -turn lane from San Miguel Drive onto Avocado
Avenue
City Nall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 15
In addition, the southbound Avocado Avenue approach to San Miguel Drive would be
restriped to provide for two left -turn lanes.
7. The project will include the construction of a centralized Emergency Operations Center.
During a major emergency or disaster, centralized emergency management is essential
to manage an effective response. A dedicated EOC allows for face -to -face coordination
among personnel who must set priorities for the use of limited resources and evaluate
the need to request mutual aid.
8. The proposed project will include a much needed library expansion component. The
expansion would include a reading area, media lab, and maintenance and storage
areas.The addition would be an expansion of the existing structure's northern and
eastern faces. The balance of the Library expansion square footage would include a
new two -story connective building that would link the grand staircase and lobby of the
existing Library (a new entrance to the Library) to the Library Terrace and Civic Green.
This connective addition would be designed to meet increasing Library demand for more
gathering space and to create shared functions between the Library and City Hall
administration building.
9. As noted in the EIR, and for the reasons stated above, the proposed project will satisfy
all of the following objectives
• Implement the February 2008, voters' approval of Measure B for a new City Hall,
including the City Hall administration building, Community Room, Council
Chambers, and a parking structure on City -owned property located between
MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue.
• Incorporate the proposed City Hall into an overall Civic Center Complex at the
proposed project site, which would include a Library Expansion, a dedicated
EOC, and a Civic Green. A park and a pedestrian overcrossing linking the park
areas on the northern parcel with the park areas on the central and southern
parcels should also be constructed.
• Accommodate the relocation of all existing City Hall uses to the proposed project
site, with the exception of the Fire Station.
Implement Policy R.1.9 of the City's General Plan by developing a passive park
(a park without sports fields) that is integrated with the proposed Civic Center
Complex.
• Integrate the 3.24 -acre parcel (northern parcel) located between MacArthur
Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, and north of San Miguel Drive, as a portion of
the proposed public park and incorporate features that will encourage use of the
proposed project site.
• Provide adequate on -site parking and circulation for all City vehicles, employee
vehicles, and visitors of the new Civic Center Complex uses.
• Minimize costs to the City by developing the proposed Civic Center Complex on
a site that does not require the condemnation of private property or result in
excessive site acquisition costs to the City and that requires minimal demolition
and tenant relocation.
Preserve and enhance the existing on -site wetlands.
City Hall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 16
Protect and enhance public views to the ocean and harbor from MacArthur
Boulevard by maintaining the existing Sight Plane above the proposed project
site and providing lookouts in the park plan.
Improve public infrastructure on and near the proposed project site, including
adjacent roadways, to both serve on -site uses and to enhance operations in the
vicinity of the project.
Incorporate sustainable features into the project via innovative design techniques
to achieve energy savings, water efficiency, potable water use reduction, carbon
dioxide emissions reduction, operational cost savings, and improved indoor
environmental quality compared to conventional construction.
Construct a dedicated EOC to allow better and faster citywide and regional
coordination of response to emergency events, including earthquakes, fires,
floods, tsunamis, and air disasters.
Expand the capacity of the Newport Beach Central Library and create a distinct
linkage between the Library and the Civic Green, the parking structure, the
Community Room, and the City Hall administration building to promote use of the
facilities and create a unified campus through design features, including a
second entry into the Library, food concession, credit union, drop -off area,
shared parking, and landscaping.
10. Short-term significant and unavoidable air quality impacts would be limited to the grading
and construction phase of the proposed project.
11. Approximately 89-90 percent of the project's total CO2e emissions are related to vehicle
exhaust emissions. These vehicle exhaust emissions themselves are controlled by the
State and federal governments and are outside the control of the City; however, the City
has incorporated alternative transportation components including bicycle storage and
changing rooms for employees and Civic Center visitors.
12. The enhanced energy efficiency features (e.g., LEED features and other energy - efficient
improvements) incorporated into the project will result in a reduction of 332 metric tons
per year of CO2e compared to conventional building design.
On balance, the Newport Beach City Council finds that there are specific considerations
associated with the proposed project that serve to override and outweigh the project's significant
environmental impacts and the existence of an environmentally superior alternative that meets
some of the project objectives. The Newport Beach City Council further finds that all feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been and will be implemented with the
Project. Therefore, any significant unavoidable effects remaining after implementation of
mitigation measures, and the Newport Beach City Council's decision not to adopt the
environmentally superior project alternative, are acceptable due to the above stated specific
economic, social, and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final
EIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project.
City Nall and Park Development Plan
EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval
Page 17
Attachment
Public Notice
(Daily Pilot, Page A3, Tuesday, November 17, 2009)
"RECEIV D TER AGENDA
Brown, Leilani PRINTED:" -04
From: Karen E. Tringali [karen_tringali @msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:48 PM
To: 'Don Webb'; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Daigle, Leslie; Henn, Michael; Gardner, Nancy;
Rosansky, Steven
Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani; Lewis, Steve (Chief)
Subject: FW: Civic Center Project: EOC Component
Council Members and Staff,
Tonight we expect to learn from our staff and architects the differential in costs and building standards between
current earthquake building codes and standards to qualify as an `essential services facility ".
California requires a facility to meet 'essential services" standards in order for the state to recommend a
municipal project to FEMA for construction grant consideration. In 2009, FEMA awarded a number of EOC
construction grants in California, the largest being $t million with several others at or above $750,000.
Newport Beach is a widely recognized leader in emergency management at both the State and Federal level.
The keynote speaker at this year's National Preparedness Conference in Washington, D.C. was from Newport
Beach, and our emergency management plans have been used as a model by many locales across the
nation. Other cities in Orange County, with lesser reputations, have followed essential services standards
when building their EOC's. Given our reputation and leadership in emergency management, we cannot afford
to side-step our responsibility in constructing an EOC which meets "essential services" standards, especially if
a construction grant will offset a sizeable portion of the incremental costs whether as a separate facility or
within one of the city hall pods.
Just as we are designing our civic center to be aesthetically pleasing and enduring from a design perspective,
our EOC deserves no less consideration when it comes to its safety design and standards. The continuity of
city government and effective recovery operations must receive the highest priority to avoid unnecessary loss
of life and property while managing through emergencies and disasters. As a resident of Newport Beach, I am
counting on it.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Xaren 7ringal7i
Corona del Mar
949.719.9390 P/F
Att* emnment betwe pritin
From: Karen E. Tringall [mailto:karen_tringall @msn.com]
Sent Friday, November 13, 2009 10:55 AM
To: 'Ed Selk:h'; 'Steve Rosansky'; 'Don Webb'
Cc: 'Klff, Dave'
Subject: Civic Center Project: EOC Component
Ed, Steve & Don,
I just wanted to reiterate the concern residents have regarding the EOC component of the new civic center as
the Building Committee prepares to meet and discuss this topic.
From the residents' perspective, it isn't a matter of where within the civic center complex the EOC is built, but
that it is built to standards which allow for safe and effective continuity in our leadership and city government as
well as successful recovery operations in the aftermath of a disaster. We understand the city hall building and
other civic center components are being built to the latest earthquake standards, but we are concerned that
those standards may not be sufficient for a qualified EOC.
We hope that your discussion with the architects and other building professionals over the next week will shed
some light on the differential between current earthquake building standards and qualified EOC standards and
any associated cost increment. We believe this information, along with answers to the question of FEMA
construction grant eligibility requirements, will provide a fact -based foundation for your risk management
analysis and assessment.
Council, staff, consultants and committee members continue to meet head on the significant challenges
associated with the civic center project, including tighter budget constraints in this harsh economic climate
However, residents do not believe that the EOC's structural safety should be compromised by lowering
standards to save short -term construction costs.
We need to insure that the civic center EOC component is an unquestionably safe environment from which our
city leaders can successfully navigate continuity and recovery operations when that time comes, avoiding
significant financial losses throughout the city by being able to effectively manage critical operations without
disruption.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Caren
949.719.9390 P/F
APlease Oormk er the env:onmwt oelore printing.
k It) of Ne pOrt Heach : LarthgUakes
L �-A CK
`M1 nryi
EARTHQUAKES
Earthquake
Are you Ready for an Earthquake handout
Disaster Supplies Checklist
rage t ut
Why Are Earthquakes a Threat to the City of Newport Beach?
While Newport Reach is at risk from man% natural and man -made hazards, an earthquake is the e%ent with the greatest
potential for far - reaching loss of life or propert%, and economic damage. This is true
for most of Southern California, since damaging earthquakes occur relati%ely
frequently , affect widespread areas, trigger man% secondary effects- and can
overwhelm the abilit% of local jurisdictions to respond. Earthquake- triggered
geologic effects include ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landslides,
liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also cause human -made
hazards such as urban fires, clam failures. and toxic chemical releases.
In California, recent earthquakes in or near urban em ironments hale caused
relatively few casualties. This is due more to luck than design. For example, when a portion of the Nimitz Freewa% in
Oakland collapsed at rush hour during the 1989. MW 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake, the freeway was uncommonly empty
hecause so man% were watching the World Series. The 1994• MW 6.7 Northridge earthquake occurred before dawn. when
most people were home safek in bed. Despite such good luck. California s urban earthquakes hale resulted in significant
losses. The moderate -sized Northridge earthquake caused 54 deaths, more than t,soo injuries and nearly $30 billion in
damage. For days afterward, thousands of homes and businesses were without electricity; tens of thousands had no gas:
and nearly So.000 had link or no water. Approximately is,000 structures were moderately to se%ereh damaged, which left
thousands of people temporarily homeless. Several collapsed bridges and o%erpasses created commuter ha%oc on the
freeway system. Extensive damage was caused b% ground shaking, with shaking- induced liquefaction and dozens of fires
after the earthquake causing additional damage. This moderately- sized earthquake resulted in record economic losses, and
Net Newport Beach is at risk from earthquakes that could release more than ten times the seismic energy of the Northridge
earthquake.
Historical and geological records show that California has a long history of seismic events. The state is probably best known
for the San .Andreas fault. a 750- mile -long fault running from the Meiican border to a point offshore west of San Francisco.
Geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to1,500 years, large earthquakes have occurred on the southern San
Andreas fault at about 130 -year intenals. As the last large earthquake on the southern San Andreas occurred in 1857, that
section of the fault is considered a likely location for an earthquake within the next few decades. The San Andreas fault.
howe%er, is only one of dozens of known faults that criss -cross southern California. Some of the better -known faults include
the Sierra Madre, Newport- Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, Hollywood, and Pale Verdes faults. Of these, the Newport -
Inglewood fault zone extends through the southwestern portion of Newport Beach (see Map 6.0, whereas the Whittier
fault, although not extending through the city is sufficiently close to still cause extensile damage in Newport Beach.
Seismologists are in agreement that a magnitude b.o to 6.5 earthquake on the Newport - Inglewood fault has the potential to
cause more damage and casualties than a'great' quake on the San Andreas fault, because the San Andreas fault is farther
away from the urban centers of southern California. There are also se%eral'blind" faults that underlie southern California.
('Blind' faults do not break the surface, but rather occur thousands of feet below the ground. They are not less of a seismic
hazard, though]. Newport Beach is underlain by one of these 'blind" faults, namely, the San Joaquin Hills fault.
Faults In and Near Newport Beach
...,_. _...,_...__ I r, I n r,,,.r Itvlo
L ItY o1 Newport 13eacn : tartngUaKCS
fu. tiIy f w•a_�.R
�.— Hwy •r.w. ..r.a�w...e >ar.��•w N�
srwr tirarnwwr.... w+aiw +rw�rw
�w w wr wry rwrn,.
_ � wwarf.woir�rc wr. ��nw.
h��rrr Fwo r �w�sr nrv� i�un�
�M *wi1 C.�r � CIF H lr �wrrr �M i�ii�F stM
Safety, Service and Professionalism
raKC - UL
l —. I I.. - - -.. - -•• - -�L__ -L -- --.. f:_.,......__.. o....,._- I n, I 1 1 ndnmo
v
Cwr,
Ca-ft
'!
Z
I
IFw�w
urWW
�Obw
fu. tiIy f w•a_�.R
�.— Hwy •r.w. ..r.a�w...e >ar.��•w N�
srwr tirarnwwr.... w+aiw +rw�rw
�w w wr wry rwrn,.
_ � wwarf.woir�rc wr. ��nw.
h��rrr Fwo r �w�sr nrv� i�un�
�M *wi1 C.�r � CIF H lr �wrrr �M i�ii�F stM
Safety, Service and Professionalism
raKC - UL
l —. I I.. - - -.. - -•• - -�L__ -L -- --.. f:_.,......__.. o....,._- I n, I 1 1 ndnmo
rage i of i
1
MAGNITUDE
�•)
, / `
T
f� '
j
B
o
O 0
o
a 08
0 o
0 0
❑ T
10%a
u z
4
0 1
V 0 O
°o ° o 0
.
LAST HOUR
r
0 0
❑ w 0 I
.
LAST DAY
0
C ' A `
❑
LAST WEEK
y 00 ago)
o�
Joo �•
Tue Nov
24 11:35:33 PST
2009 19
753 earthquakes on this
map
Home
Research Tools
faults of Southern Calitornia
General Earthquake Information •
Los Angeles Region
Stations, instrumentation
Educate enal Rescu•ces
This map covers most of the Los Angeles metropolitan area Within this map area, most every
kind of fault type can be found Indeed. since these maps show only surface traces of faults,
abaet t, Ja!a c : .nte•
some DOIMtRIh damaging 4ults ° nangh. blind thrust fauks. Bke the one which caused the
. wellsite map
Nadhttdae unhauake of 1994 — are not shown Some of the faults which are shown may
never rupture again This map is not meant to ee used as a zoning guide. nor for risk
assessment Fp, these purposes. please see the documents prepared by the CalffornIt
GeObgKal SVrVey
EleueYm it 900 001 Gr 7000 7501 0390 9000
ekaiia
Sti teuM as
0 IO 61 b2 lUS R7 6A 767 1067 R2't UOt 240 70M
RELATED INFORMATION
Alphabetical Fault Inde.
Main Fault Map
http: / /www. data .scec.org /faultsAafault.html 11/24/2009
75th Anniversary of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake Page I of ?
State of California
Department of Conservation
I GS x News
75th Anniversary of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE
THE FIELD ACT. IMPROVING THI DESIGH AND WILDING STANDARDS FORLALHORN1A Kill) OLS
Introduction by the State Geologist Or John Parnsn
MARCH 10"' - To American history buffs this is the date in 1681 when William Penn was given the
colony of Pennsylvania by King Charles II of England - but to Californians . and especially to those who
Irve in the greater Long Beach area of southern California. March 10 " is chiseled in history as the date
of the Great 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
In the early evening hours on March 10 1933 . the treacherous Newport- Inglewood fault ruptured . jolbng
the local citizenry just as the evening meals were being prepared The Magnitude 6 4 earthquake
caused extensive damage (approximately $50 million in 1933 dollars) throughout the City of Long Beach
and surrounding communities Damage was most significant to poorly designed and unremforced brick
structures Sadly, the earthquake caused 120 fatalities
Wimin a few seconds, 120 schools in and around the Long Beach area were damaged of which 70 were
destroyed Experts concluded that d children and their teachers were in school at the time of the
earthquake casualties would have been in the thousands
Just one month after the earthquake the Caldome Stale Legislature enacted the Field Ad when it was
determined that loose subsoil shoddy workmanship, and substandard materials all contributed to the failure
of the school structures The Field Ad authorises the Division of the State Architect (OSA) to review and
approve all public school plans and specifications and to furnish general supervision of the construction
work The Caltfomr Geological Survey assists the DSA try reviewing geologic hazards affecting schools subject to the Feld Act
Since the enforcement of the Field Act no school has collapsed because of a seismic event and there has been no loss of life
We at CGS hope that this websrle will help you gain a perspective about the impact of this earthquake from de horrific damage it caused
to how the California government acted to help protect future generations of its citizens
ABOUT THE LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE
When. 5 5e p m March 10 1933
Winn- Epicenter was 3 miles south of Huntington Beach about 8 mines deep
Source: Newport - Inglewood Fault The fault extends on land for 46 miles from Culver
CM to Newport Beach where it runs into this Pacific Ocean It is part of a faun
system that is connected to the Rose Canyon Fault, which comes on shore to the
south near San Dego In the Los Angeles area the surface expression of the
Newpon - Inglewood Fault is accentuated by a lore of hills extending from Signal Hill to
Culver City The Newport- Inglewood is a right- ateral stnke -skp fault with a slip rate of
about 0 02 inches per year It is thought to be capable of producing an earthquake as
large as M7 4
Magnitude: The 1933 earCpuake was a magnitude 6 4, seismologists say quakes of
similar size occurred on the fault in 1769 1812 and 1855 It is estimated the fault
ruptured for about nine miles in fie subsurface (there was no surface fault rupture)
The ground shaking lasted about 10 seconds The maximum recorded ground
acceleration was 22 percent of the force of gravity Note Long Beach was the fist
earthquake retarded by just-developed strong motion instruments
('accelerographs -) Acceleration recordings were off the monitors scale on some
instruments
Casualties: 120 deaths. including 52 in Long Beach and 17 in Compton An
estimated two -thirds of these occurred as people ran out of busdings and were hit by
rating deals There were also more man 500 injures reported in Long Beach alone
Damage. About S50 million in 1933 dollars Significant damage occurred in Long
Beach. Huntington Park Compton and other areas where there was a
combination of poor construction practices and unfavorable geolog"I conditions
All
75th Anntversary of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
causing increased ground shaking and liquefaction Brick- and - mortar construction
fared particularly poorly Seventy schools were destroyed and 120 damaged .
which represents about 75% of the schools in the area Broken gas lines caused
fires in Long Beach Several areas were without water due to broken pipes OA
derricks were shaken out of the ground in Huntington Beach The earthquake
impacted an estimated 75 000 square miles and was fell as tar away as the San
Joaquin Valley. the Owens Valley and northem Bala Caldorma
AFTERMATH... THE FIELD ACT
I'aue .: of >
As a result of all the damage to school buildings the California State Legislature passed the Frew Act lust a month after the earthquake
The Fold Act requrfes that the budding designs be based on high -level building standards adopted by the stale and Mat plans and
spechicatlons be prepared by competent designers quaiihed by stale registration The quality of construction was to be enforced through
independent plan review and independent inspection Finally . the design professionals independent inspector and the contractor must
verify under penalty of perjury let the bwldrg was constructed according to the approved pitons The Feld Act as adopted, applied only
to new construcaon. not to eansbng pre -1933 sUda buadings Legislation to cover the cnene for wntrnued use or abandonment of these
pre -1933 school buildings was enaeed under the Garrison Act of 1939 As of 1974, all pre -Feld Act schools m the Los Angeles area have
been retrofthed
w■ �.
The following image is also available for download as a high resolution PDF document �owNOad Lono Beach Eanhguake Poster here
l5 3 MB PDF I
i:Ptn Anniversary of ute ty» Long tseacn Lartnyuare
GROUND SHAKING INTENSITY (ISOSEISMAL) MAPS
--- FOR THE 1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE
(FROM TRIFUNAC. 20031
ISOVMSn -4 C IMS
•b,rtr Ow.fp ��IM elrPt tr.tr.e� -. r... i6
t
t1 Ir3 ke
,a • e
33.9
33b ' 5
t 8a
on the mage for a larger view)
` oa t 1933
u -s�
337 M -3.0+
M -4.0+
M =50+
336
OAfeldi
0 10
tIq BacR p�
L � Ilacn IG tiJ!
,,e � �wAtctkropaM
8
RRUdili�d MercaNi
Anitmlty Stale
r
1410 fm
+ 1o11 ae>y ly prism rt.ott
1 + tMgM'w -t wwnn.r .tnq
. e f.lr lw.R wm-d+m.w -ro
rm+ta. away+
reoola .yl evWOa+. bawp<
w reeve, eu+n :tnwtwa+
t Web RLti >tnefine++YpW�
4-vrgea. 000•1, Msn
+UVaure+)vM<, mYOI
dsvge
♦ RuiN•sy. t►A+s11 .te M.tn.4+irx.
1(i %
rage .3 of .3
.M- .�FYYIIt.4N11W.\
1) (lnm.t9 ♦wIM'trI♦♦11Mrl On
e.o,go; Mpttt U+rrown Ir+pr eve
6) r ` `5
- - - - -- - „ �.- Fmlwal 6 1
M -6A
`�
��♦ ne,.pun 8�n � tlsAOrt Alan
♦
z0 Km
`t � AaadapggR
�t
�R
tt8t 1180 117
litn Anniversary of the IV.)-) Long tseacn tAnnytwtce
r '
sth annkmertary Ism Loop march fanlqua4
PERVASIVE AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE
LONG BEACH AREA DEMONSTRATED A NEED FOR THE FIELD ACT
RELATED LINKS
Orvbron of the State Archhect - tftpjrwww.dsa.das.ca.aovhlefauh.Mrn
Photos from 1933 Long Beach Earthquake:
httD IAvww eas sW edulEerthouake Cerlter119331-Bedlindex html
"!to lArbraryoflolo cr usps Dov"i- bintsearch ca0search mode= exact& selection =Long- Beach %2C•Caldomo%
. 71 -E arlhgoake.March.l0%2C+ 1933 %7CLorlo +Beach %7CEarthouake %7C1933
General references about 1933 Lora Beath Earthqualm:
- _ - - 1_vheororallstatesleventsl1933 03 a oho
"t1D l /nrsee berkelev edullona beachilono beach html
MID NA data stet oralchrono mdextiongbeac html
httD ihvww scec oroleducabonl030310lonobeach html
Scientda and engineering references about schools and the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake.
MID IAvww asce DrgipdfAclee long beach ca report Dn'
�ILr
httD 11W" use edWdeDVyyll ena/Eanhouake end/TrlfUnac reprents of IDumal- DdDef VJ46 Dot
rage 4 of 3
L.. —. 14 .. ...... -- ......1,.,.,. /ki......./D....,...R -- -U-- -L ---- 1 11' 4 "nuU,
/xn Anniversary of the IV-1.3 tong tseacn r-annyuaxe
Earthgwkatschool Mated links:
hilt) /hnvw excellence dos ca oowStudeM5afety /57 % -! him
Mtp /Avww wmmic ca oov/
Relabd hfstoncal society links:
http IAA historx;alsocretvlo oro/
Conditions of Use I Privacy Ply
CopyrpM O 2007 StsM of CNMorro
rage 3 of :)
L.._.,s,....... .....+..... .....:.... ................. n.r_....ro...._..n .._..ne....t....._.. 11 NA /1rUln
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 1 of 14
4)14 H -01
from California Geology, April 1989, Vol. 42, No. 4.
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport - Inglewood
Fault Zone
By
TOUSSON R. TOPPOZADA, JOHN H. BENNETT, GLENN BORCHARDT
RICHARD SAUL, and JAMES F. DAVIS
Division of Mines and Geology
with consultants
CARL B. JOHNSON, HENRY J. LAGORIO, and KARL V. STEINBRUGGE
This article is adapted from Planning scenario for a major earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood fault
zone. Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 99, 203 p., 16 plates, 1988 (in press).
The Newport- Inglewood fault zone was the source of the destructive 1933 long Beach earthquake
(Richter magnitude 6.3), which took 120 lives. A major earthquake (magnitude about 7) on this fault
within the highly urbanized Los Angeles metropolitan area poses one of the greatest hazards to lives and
property in the nation. Many of the possible consequences of a major earthquake on this fault are
described in the scenario. Knowing the potential impact to transportation and utility lifelines and critical
structures will allow emergency planners to coordinate preparedness and response plans to cope with
this eventuality. Individuals can support public mitigation efforts and develop plans for themselves and
their families to cope with the effects of earthquakes ... [California Geology] editor
INTRODUCTION
In 1981 the Federal Emergency Management Agency analyzed emergency response capabilities of all
levels of government and the private sector and concluded that the collective capabilities would not be
adequate to cope with a major destructive earthquake in a metropolitan area. Following this analysis, the
Governor of California established the Emergency Task Force for Earthquake Preparedness in February
1981. Working with the Task Force, the Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology
(DMG) developed scenarios for two destructive earthquakes. One scenario is based on a repeat of the
1857 Fort Tejon earthquake (magnitude about 8) on the San Andreas fault zone in southern California
(DMG Special Publication 60). The second scenario is based on a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake (magnitude about 8) on the portion of the San Andreas fault zone in northern California
(DMG Special Publication 61).
A scenario for a magnitude (M) 7.5 earthquake on the Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay area
(DMG Special Publication 78) was prepared, and a scenario for a major earthquake in the San Diego
area is being prepared.
An earthquake planning scenario assumes that a specific earthquake occurs in the future. The scenario
event provides the opportunity for hypothetical assessments of the performance of certain critical
facilities in the affected area. These assessments arc based on the assumed surface fault rupture.
intensity of shaking, and liquefaction related ground failure resulting from the scenario earthquake. The
http:' /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 1 l; 24 %2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 2 of 14
impacts of these effects upon structures and lifeline facilities then are considered.
PHOTO 1
Photo 1. Aerial view of metropolitan Los Angeles. Santa Monica Mountains are in the background.
Photo courtesy of Port of Los Angeles.
The region that would be affected by a major earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is
centered in the Los Angeles metropolitan area ( Photo 1). This area is approximately 30 miles wide and
is hounded on the west by the Pacific coast from Santa Monica to San Juan Capistrano. The area
includes the cities of San Fernando, Pasadena, and Orange on the cast. Approximately 10 million people
live in Los Angeles and Orange counties. This area encompasses virtually all of the region likely to
experience Modified Mercalli (MM) intensities of VIII or greater resulting from this scenario
earthquake, and thus, all areas within which significant structural damage can be expected (Figures 1, 2,
and 5).
NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE
Geologic Setting
The alignment of hills and mesas from Newport to north of Inglewood first caused geologists to suspect
that the uplifted features are related to a common, linear, underlying structural element, called the
Newport- Inglewood fault (Figure 1). The landforms resulted from a combination of different rates of
uplift and the effects of different agents of erosion at various localities along the zone (Barrows, 1974).
Late Pleistocene marine deposits are exposed on the surface of these low, rolling hills which range in
elevation from 175 feet to about 510 feet. They are generally surrounded by south- or east - sloping
alluvial terrain.
The northwest - trending zone of faulted anticlines which forms the surface topography in the Newport-
Inglewood fault zone are structural traps for proven oil fields (Yeats, 1973) (Figure 1). From northwest
to southeast these are the Cheviot Hills, Inglewood, Potrero, Howard Townsite, Rosecrans, Dominguez,
Long Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach, and West Newport oil fields. According to
Yeats (1973), "on the northwest, the zone terminates abruptly against the Malibu Coast fault system in
the vicinity of the Cheviot Hills oil field, but the extension of the zone to the southeast beyond the West
Newport field is a matter of controversy." In this southeastern extension offshore of San Clemente and
San Diego (the Rose Canyon and La Nacion faults), the faults have similar trends and projections (Ziony
and Yerkes, 1985). The fault system is more than 145 miles long.
The oil producing anticlines and northwest trending surface features are underlain by a deep seated fault
zone. At depth the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is a nearly vertical right- lateral strike -slip fault, with
the Pacific Ocean side moving northwestward relative to Los Angeles (Harding, 1973). At the surface,
the individual fault segments comprising the fault zone are discontinuous. For example, the Inglewood
fault segment is 4 miles long. The sense of offset between surface fault segments is left stepping, which
indicates a through -going right - lateral strike -slip fault at depth.
The zone of deformation along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is about 1.2 miles wide; it includes
the folds and faults that are the surface expressions of the inferred deep seated fault zone. Known
Holocene (last 11,000 years) active fault traces in the zone of deformation have been mapped in the
Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones (Figure 2).
http: / /www.johnmartin.comj' earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htTn 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 3 of 14
Seventy small earthquakes (M 2.5 to M 3.8) that occurred in and bordering the Newport- Inglewood fault
zone from 1973 to 1985 were analyzed by Hauksson (1987). The earthquake epicenters occurred along
the fault zone from Dominguez Hills to Cheviot Hills. Adjacent to Long Beach, however, the earthquake
epicenters are offset 2 to 3 miles to the east of the Newport - Inglewood fault zone, along the trend of the
subsurface Los Alamitos fault. Most of the earthquakes occurred at depths of 4 to 7 miles, which is
normal for earthquakes in southern California.
FIGURE 1
Figure 1. Newport- Inglewood fault zone, southern California, showing structural zone of folds and
faults.
FIGURE 2
Figure 2. Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones maps in the Newport- Inglewood fault zone.
ALQUIST- PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES
ZONES
The Alquist -Priolo Special Studies "Zones Act was signed into law in 1972. The purpose of this Act is to
prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and thus
to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. Under the Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate
"Special Studies Zones" along known active faults in California. Cities and counties affected by the
zones must regulate certain development projects within the zones. Permits for developing these sites
within the zones are not issued until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened
by surface displacement from future faulting (Hart, 1985).
PHOTO 2
Photo 2. Buildings damaged during the 1920 Inglewood earthquake, west side of Commerce Street (now
Brea Avenue) in Inglewood. Photo from Taber 1920.
The first maps showing Special Studies Zones for the Newport- Inglewood fault zone were issued in
1976 and revised in 1986 (Figure 2). The active fault traces are discontinuous segments that are
generally offset in a left- stepping pattern, as in Long Beach. Some of these traces show evidence of
active movement during Holocene time - -- the last 11,000 years (Bryant, 1988).
Active traces are not well located for some segments of the fault. The effectiveness of the Act varies,
depending on how well the fault zone is defined. However, the law applies only to new real estate
development and to structures for human occupancy. Many older structures sit astride active traces of
the fault and the extent of damage produced by a major earthquake will depend on the amount of
displacement that occurs locally on the fault and on the measures taken to mitigate the hazard.
SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL
EARTHQUAKES
Earthquakes were reported in the Los Angeles area by Spanish explorers as early as 1769. Members of
the Portola expedition felt more than twenty-four earthquakes during one week in 1769 while traveling
http:// www. johnmartin. com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 4 of 14
in the area between the Santa Ana and Los Angeles rivers
The earthquakes of December 8, 1812 and December 21, 1812 were interpreted by Toppozada and
others (198 1) from documents written by Franciscan missionaries in December 1812 and January 1813.
Dates of earthquakes and some of their effects are listed below.
December 8, 1812. An earthquake on this day destroyed the bell tower at Mission San Juan Capistrano
(intensity VII), causing the roof of the church to cave in, and killing 40 Indians who were in the church.
At Mission San Gabriel, statues in the church were broken, the bell tower was cracked, and other
Mission buildings were extensively damaged (intensity VII). At Mission San Fernando, the walls of the
church were damaged (intensity VII), and 30 beams were required to support them. The earthquake
postulated in this scenario (M about 7) generates intensity in the low Vlll range at San Juan Capistrano,
San Gabriel, and San Fernando.
Intensity effects of the 1812 event are not sufficient to define the source fault. Jacoby and others (1987)
found evidence from tree -rings for an 1812 earthquake on the San Andreas fault 30 miles northeast of
San Gabriel, and hypothesized that it was the December 8 event.
December 21, 1812. Two separate events in southern California occurred in the same month and only
about two weeks apart in time. this has caused some confusion and the mistaken impression that a single
earthquake was destructive from Orange County to Santa Barbara County. The December 21, 1812
earthquake epicenter was probably located in the Santa Barbara channel ( Toppozada and others, 1981).
Earthquake damage was reported at missions at San Buenaventura Santa Barbara Santa Ynez, and
Purisima Concepcion in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
July 10, 1855. This event was probably on one of the surface faults (Hollywood- Raymond, Whittier, or
Newport- Inglewood) bordering the Los Angeles basin. It could also have been located on a concealed
fault as was the case for the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake. During the July 10, 1855 quake, the
bells of Mission San Gabriel were thrown down, and 26 buildings in Los Angeles were damaged. The
earthquake was felt from San Bernardino to Santa Barbara.
June 21, 1920. This earthquake of magnitude 4.9 (Richter, 1970) was destructive only at Inglewood
(Photo 2). Because of this, Taber (1920) assumed a shallow epicenter at or west of Inglewood.
According to Taber (1920), "the damage to buildings was due to poor construction rather than to the
intensity of the vibrations. Thin brick walls built as fronts to wooden buildings and not tied in properly,
toppled outward into the street. Poorly built brick cornices and fire walls along the fronts of buildings
were shaken off.
March 10, 1933. Long Beach Earthquake (Photos 3 -5). The hypocenter of this M 6.3 earthquake
(Figures 3 and 4) was just off the coast of Newport Beach at a depth of about 6 miles. Aftershocks
(magnitude up to 5.5) occurred along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone from Newport Beach to Long
Beach, a distance of 15 miles. This indicates that the earthquake was generated by about 15 miles of
subsurface faulting that began near Newport Beach and propagated northwestward along the Newport-
Inglewood fault zone toward Long Beach. Fault rupture was not identified at the surface, and no seismic
sea waves were observed. The isoseismal map (Figure 4) shows that the area damaged at MM intensity
VII to IX extended from Laguna Beach to Marina del Rey and inland to Whittier.
According to Richter (1958), "Loss of life is commonly stated as 120, and property damage at 50 million
dollars." The 1933 earthquake stimulated passage of the Field Act and the Riley Act by the California
legislature. Under the Field Act, the construction of public schools is regulated. Under the Riley Act,
construction of buildings larger than two - family dwellings is regulated.
http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport -In... Page 5 of 14
The March 1933 Long Beach earthquake was followed by a M 5.4 earthquake which occurred on
October 2, 1933 centered near Signal Hill.
In 1941 two earthquakes caused damage in Torrance and Gardena. The first event (M 4.9) occurred on
October 21, 1933 in the West Dominguez oil field and damaged wells at depths of 5,000 feet to 6,000
feet (Barrows, 1974). The second event (M 5.4) occurred on November 14 to the west of the Newport-
Inglewood fault zone and caused damage in Torrance to structures inadequately repaired after the 1933
earthquake (Richter. 1958, p. 499). On June 18, 1944 two earthquakes of M 4.5 and M 4.4, respectively,
occurred in the Dominguez Hills and damaged oil wells in the Rosecrans oil field at depths of 3,000 feet
to 6,000 feet (Barrows, 1974).
FIGURE 3
Figure 3. Los Angeles metropolitan area and surroundings, showing major Quaternary faults and
epicenters of earthquakes of M 5 or greater that occurred from 1927 to 1987.
SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE
Major Quaternary faults surround Los Angeles: the epicenters of earthquakes of magnitude 5 or greater
that have occurred since 1927 are shown in Figure 3. The Newport- Inglewood fault zone (Photo 6) was
selected for the scenario earthquake because:
(1) it is part of a fault system that is more than 145 miles long that extends to Baja California;
(2) it lies within the highly urbanized Los Angeles metropolitan area, a major (M about 7) earthquake
has consequences potentially greater than those of a larger magnitude event on the more distant southern
San Andreas fault;
(3) faults within this zone have been active during the Holocene epoch:
(4) the displacement rate on the fault zones during the last million years is 0.6 mm/yr (0.024 in/yr);
(5) historic record shows that an earthquake which occurred on December 8, 1912 severely damaged the
missions at San Juan Capistrano. San Gabriel, and San Fernando, suggesting a magnitude of about 7 and
an epicenter within 50 miles of these missions. The destructive Long Beach earthquake of 1933 (M 6.3)
occurred on this fault zone, and small earthquakes continue to occur on this fault zone in the Los
Angeles metropolitan area.
IaLt1i1:IWJ
Figure 4. Isoseismal map of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Roman numerals indicate Modified
Mercalli intensity areas. Arabic numerals indicate Modified Mercalli intensities at specific locations.
From Toppozada and Parke. 1982.
Faulting
Subsurface faulting extending 45 miles on the fault zone is postulated, with the northern end near
Beverly Hills at the intersection of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone with the Santa Monica fault. The
southern end is offshore from Laguna Beach. This zone of faulting overlaps and extends beyond the
locations of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake and its after - shocks. Surface faulting will be
http:l/www.johnmartin.coni/earthquakes/eqpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 6 of 14
discontinuous, and occur mainly on the Holocene active traces.
The 45 mile extent of faulting on this zone corresponds to M 7.4 using the relation of Bonilla and others
(1984), to M 7.1 using the relation of Slemmons (1982), and to M 7.0 using the relation of Wyss (1979).
For planning purposes, a maximum surface displacement of 6 feet is assumed. The more prevalent
average displacement is usually half the maximum value ( Slemmons, 1987, verbal communication), or
about 3 feet. The displacement is assumed to be dominantly right- lateral strike -slip, and occurs on the
Holocene active (Alquist- Priolo) fault traces (Figure 2). Minor dip slip or vertical components of
faulting will occur locally. Where there are no known active faults in the fault zone, displacement occurs
possibly on other unidentified faults within the approximately three- quarter mile wide zone of
deformation. Warping and uplift of about 3 feet will also occur in the zone.
Potentially damaging ground shaking continues for about 25 seconds within 25 miles of the fault.
Potentially damaging aftershocks occur for about a month following the main shock, with a few
earthquakes in the magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 range.
The southernmost 8 -mile segment of the postulated subsurface faulting is offshore between Newport
Beach and Laguna Beach. Because only minor vertical displacements are expected, the potential is small
for generating a seismic sea wave or tsunami from this 7- mile -long offshore segment, and is not
considered in this scenario. Oscillatory waves in enclosed water bodies (seiches) occur in the local
harbors.
PHOTO 3
Photo 3. This wood frame house in the Long Beach - Crompton area was thrown off its foundation in the
March 1933 earthquake. Photo by Olaf P. Jenkins, DMG photo tile.
The scenario earthquake is consistent with the judgment "... that earthquakes of M 6.5 to 7,
accompanied by as much as 6 feet of surface displacement, are appropriate design earthquakes for
ordinary planning purposes for most faults in the Los Angeles region" (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985).
Shaking Intensity
The degree of ground shaking resulting from the scenario earthquake will depend on (1) the distance
from the causative fault and (2) variations in the geologic materials.
In preparing a regional intensity map for assessing lifeline damage, Reichle and Kahle (1986) developed
a computational procedure based on the Evernden seismic intensity model (Evemden and others, 1973,
1981; Evemden, 1975: and Evemden and Thomson, 1985). This computer model calculates the ground
shaking acceleration on a grid of reference points throughout a region employing equations that account
for the influence of distance from the fault source, attenuation, and the surface geology. The intensities
are calculated by using an empirical relationship between acceleration and the intensity scale.
Reichle and Kahle's model is used in this scenario, and differs from that of Evemden and others (1981)
in that it assumes that shaking intensity does not depend on depth to water table. Also, it predicts
intensities for bedrock sites within 3 miles of the fault and at distances greater than 25 miles on
unsaturated alluvium that are approximately one unit higher than Evemden's. The model was guided by
the areal extent of intensity Vll and Vlll shaking for earthquakes of magnitude about 7 on other
California faults, notably the 1868 Hayward and the 1952 Kern County earthquakes.
http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 7 of 14
Development of the seismic intensity distribution map begins with attenuation versus distance
calculations plotted as concentric ellipses centered on the fault zone. With distance from the fault, each
successive ellipse is an intensity unit less than the previous one. On well consolidated bedrock within a
distance of 5 miles of the fault the ellipses denote Modified Mercalli intensities of VII; within 22 miles
they are VI or greater; within 50 miles they are V or greater. In areas of less - consolidated ground,
seismic intensities due to shaking can be up to 2 units higher. Therefore, within 5 miles of the fault, the
softest ground. Quaternary sedimentary deposits, would have predicted intensities of IX. In the same
area. bedrock of intermediate consolidation would have predicted intensities of VIII.
Intensities higher than 1X are not shown because intensities X through X11 are generally attributed to the
secondary effects of ground breakage. Intensities X through X11 may occur in the areas of potential
ground breakage (taulting, liquefaction, landslides).
The intensities are generally highest at the fault and decrease with distance from the fault. The
concentric pattern is modified by the areal distribution of geologic materials that respond differently to
shaking. This difference accounts for the intensity being Vlll nearest the fault in the uplifted area of
consolidated rock, and for intensity IX occurring 3 miles away from the fault in unconsolidated
alluvium.
The area within 25 miles of the fault will be subjected to shaking of Modified Mercalli intensity Vlll or
greater, strong enough to cause considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings; great damage in
poorly built structures). MM intensity VIII or greater shaking effects extend throughout the alluvial
sections of the Los Angeles basin, to the vicinity of Monrovia and West Covina, including the San
Fernando Valley and virtually all of the populated alluvial areas of coastal Orange County south to San
Juan Capistrano.
Intensity VII and lesser shaking occur in the consolidated rocks in the hilly areas, including the Santa
Monica Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, Puente Hills, and the mountainous areas of Orange County.
Within the planning area, there are local zones where intensities greater than MM IX could result from
faulting, liquefaction, or landslides.
Ground Failure
The liquefaction potential in Holocene sediments is high where the depth to the water table is less than
10 feet. fhe liquefaction potential is medium where the depth to the water table is between 10 and 30
feet. Areas subject to liquefaction include Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, Marina del Rey,
Newport Bay, Balboa, and areas in urban Orange County.
FIGURE 5
Figure 5. Modified Mercalli intensities estimated for the scenario earthquake of M 7 on the Newport -
Inglewood fault zone. southern California.
Areas subject to seismically induced landsliding include the Palos Verdes Hills, Santa Monica bluffs,
and some potentially unstable slopes in eastern Orange County.
COMPARISON TO M 8 EARTHQUAKE
ON THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT
http: / /%ww.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11124/2009
north -south routes( 1, 110, 405, 710 and 605) and four major east -west routes( 10, 22, 42, and 91)
Routes 1 and 405 lead into the area from both the north and south, and about 30 miles of each route is
exposed to intensity IX shaking. The other three north -south routes traverse the area diagonally and each
has about 8 miles exposed to intensity IX shaking.
The major east -west routes traverse the area diagonally and each has about 8 miles exposed to intensity
1X shaking.
Route 5 provides an alternative north -south corridor east of the zone of high intensity shaking. There are
numerous alternative surface streets which can be used to bypass damaged portions of freeways.
Over 130 miles of state highways and over 350 state bridges in the Los Angeles area will be shaken at
intensity IX or greater resulting from the scenario event on the Newport- Inglewood fault. Intensity IX is
considered to be the threshold of critical damage to highways.
For planning purposes alternate emergency routes that are at grade (not elevated) and not likely to be
affected by fallen power lines or close to heavily damaged buildings should be identified. Alternate
routes are especially important along 405 north and south of long Beach and along 710 leading into
Long Beach, where significant damage may occur.
I lighway emergency response plans should be coordinated with those developed for air, rail, and marine
transport in order to optimize plans for integrated transportation capability. Access to and travel within
the stricken area will be difficult and should be limited to the highest emergency priorities.
Airports
there are five major airports in the Los Angeles basin (Los Angeles International, Burbank, Ontario
International. John Wayne, and Long Beach International). Los Angeles International alone has a
passenger /personnel use of about 250,000 people per day. There are four major military airports in the
area. Many small airports in the area could be used in post- earthquake response and recovery operations.
Control towers, fuel tanks, and other structures will be damaged. Runway damage due to liquefaction
occurs at John Wayne and Los Alamitos (military) airports, but will be repaired within 24 hours to two
days. Freeway damage will impair access to airports and damage to electrical and petroleum facilities
will limit usage of airports that are operating.
Railroads
Ground and rail failures occur in the Wilmington, Long Beach, and Seal Beach areas. The rail bridge to
Terminal Island is closed.
The Los Angeles to Santa Monica line is closed by faulting at the bridge over Ballona Creek. The lines
from Los Angeles and from Watts to El Segundo are closed due to faulting and shaking damage to
bridges.
Faulting closes the line from Compton to east Long Beach. The bridge at the Route 710 crossing just
west of the Los Angeles River is damaged.
The line into Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station is closed by faulting and liquefaction. The Orange to
http://wwwjohnmartin.com/earthquakes/eqpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-_ Page 10 of 14
San Diego line is closed due to liquefaction.
Port Facilities at Los Angeles -- -Long Beach Harbor
Access to Terminal Island is limited to Ocean Boulevard across Gerald Desmond Bridge, because of
approach failures at Vincent Thomas and Schuyler Heim bridges. In Long Beach, Route 710 is closed
due to liquefaction and access to the southeast basin is limited to Queensway Bridge. Liquefaction and
settlement severely restrict rail access, and damage many rail - mounted gravity cranes.
Utility lines, oil pipelines, and waste water lines are extensively damaged, reducing the harbor
operations to 25 percent for one week. Fires occur in the harbor area; these and ruptured oil storage
facilities pose the threat of a major fire.
Oscillatory water waves in enclosed bodies of water (seiches) have damaged ships and moorings in the
harbor areas from Santa Monica to Newport Beach.
SCENARIO MAPS AND DAMAGE
ASSESSMENTS ARE INTENDED FOR
EMERGENCY PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
They are based upon the following hypothetical chain of events:
1. A particular earthquake occurs;
2. Various localities in the planning area experience
a specific type of shaking or ground failure,
3. Certain critical facilities undergo
damage and others do not.
The conclusions regarding the performance of facilities are hypothetical and not to be construed as site -
specific engineering evaluations. For the most part, damage assessments are strongly influenced by the
seismic intensity distribution map developed for this particular scenario earthquake. There is
disagreement among investigators as to the most realistic model for predicting seismic intensity
distribution. None have been fully tested and each would yield a different earthquake planning scenario.
Facilities that are particularly sensitive to emergency response will require a detailed geotechnical study.
The damage assessments are based upon this specific scenario. An earthquake of significantly different
magnitude on this or any one of many other faults in the planning area will result in a markedly different
pattern of damage.
PHOTO 4
Photo 4. Settling cracks on Pacific Coast Highway. 1.4 miles southeast of Huntington Beach Pier, 1933
Long Beach earthquake. Photo from Long Beach Public Library collection.
http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/2412009
Utilities
Communications
Within 25 miles of the fault zone. telephone lines designated for essential services are 25 percent usable
in the first day, 50 percent usable in the second day, and 75 percent usable at the end of the third day.
The availability of telephone communications for the public is significantly lower.
Electric Power Facilities
Five power plants - -- Harbor, Long Beach, Alamitos, Haynes, and Huntington Beach -- are shut down
for more than 3 days. A post - earthquake inspection at the San Onofre nuclear power plant indicates no
damage.
Five major transmission substations in the Culver City- Compton area are out of service for more than 3
days, making it difficult to re -route power into the area.
The 3 major substations serving coastal Orange County, are out of service for more than 3 days, making
it difficult to re -route power into the area.
Water Supply
1'he flow of water in primary transmission lines crossing or within the fault zone is reduced by half for
the first day and will return to normal in a week. Areas southwest of the fault zone from Huntington
Beach to Inglewood must rely on local storage or tank trucks for drinking water.
Waste Water
The principal treatment plants in Los Angeles County, at El Segundo and Carson, are damaged and
operate at less than 50 percent capacity. The main Orange County plant is in the fault zone north of
Newport Beach and is severely damaged; it will he inoperable for several months.
Main waste water lines into the Carson treatment plant from the north (San Gabriel Valley) and the cast
(Long Beach) are heavily damaged at the fault crossing between Compton and Long Beach.
Damage and lack of fresh water for treatment and of electrical power for pumping, result in sewage
flowing into soils, channels, and streets, contaminating the ground water and the coastline.
Natural Gas
Along the fault zone there are thousands of damaged natural gas mains, valves, and service connections.
There are numerous fires in streets at broken gas lines, and in structures at broken house -line
connections. Faulting causes breaks in major transmission pipelines at three locations: Slauson Avenue,
104th Street, and along the Los Angeles River.
Ground failures cause breaks in transmission lines in Sepulveda Canyon and Marina del Rey. In Long
Beach Harbor the trunk line crossing at the Heim Bridge is broken due to ground failure. The high
pressure gas line to the I iuntington Beach power plant breaks where it crosses the marshlands east of
Bolsa C'hica State Park.
http:Nwtivw.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11 /24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport -... Page 12 of 14
Petroleum
A major fire rages for several days at one of the refineries in the Carson - Wilmington area.
Many fuel lines rupture at the fault crossings between Baldwin Hills and Huntington Beach.
In Los Angeles Harbor, ground failures rupture oil pipelines and storage facilities, discharging oil into
the channel. A fire on Mormon Island poses the threat of a major conflagration.
The fuel line to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power power plant in east Long Beach is
ruptured by faulting.
In Seal Beach, ground failures have damaged storage facilities and piping, with consequent fuel spillage
into Alamitos Bay. The fuel line to Huntington Beach power plant is damaged by faulting. Facilities
utilized for the manufacture, processing, and storage of various petrochemicals warrant special attention
to reduce the risk of a potentially widespread release of toxic emissions.
APPLICATION OF SCENARIO
The Earthquake Planning Scenario maps and related damage assessments illustrate a regional damage
pattern that is likely to occur in this specific scenario earthquake of magnitude about 7 resulting from
subsurface rupture of a 45 -mile length of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone. Recognition of the possible
impacts will allow informed planning by state and local officials concerned with emergency
preparedness and response.
This study was funded in part by the U. S. Geological Survey under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program.
PHOTO 5
Photo 5. Collapsed single story business building of unreinforced masonry, 1933 earthquake. Photo by
Olaf P. Jenkins, DMG photo file.
PHOTO 6
Photo 6. Northwestward view along Newport- Inglewood fault zone (1941). The San Gabriel River (on
right) Flows into Alamitos Bay (left). Photo from Spence Collection, University of California, Los
Angeles.
SELECTED BACKGROUND REFERENCES
Barrows, A. G., 1974, A review of the geology and earthquake history of the Newport- Inglewood
structural zone, southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 114, 115
P.
Bonilla, M. F., Mark, R. K., and Lienkaemper J. J., 1984, Statistical surface fault displacement: Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, v. 74, no. 6, p. 2379 -2411.
Bryant, W. A., 1985x, Fault Evaluation Report FER -172 southern Newport- Inglewood fault zone,
southern Los Angeles and northern Orange Counties: California Division of Mines and Geology, 7
h"p: / /www.johnmartin.com/ ear thquakes /egpapers/00000077.htTn 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-... Page 13 of 14
maps, scale 1:24,000.
Bryant, W. A., 1985b, Fault Evaluation Report FER -172 northern Newport - Inglewood fault zone, Los
Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, 12 reaps, scale 1:24,000.
Bryant, W. A., 1988, Recently active traces of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles and
Change counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 88 -14, 15 p.,
I plate.
Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. J., and Silva, M. A., 1982a,
Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 8.3 earthquake an the San Andreas fault in the San
Francisco Bay area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 61, 160p.
Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. J., and Silva, M. A., 1982b,
Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas fault in southern
California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 60,128p.
Evemden, J. F., 1975, Seismic intensities, "size" of earthquakes, and related phenomena: Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, v. 65, p. 1287 -1315.
Evemden, J. F., and Thomson, J. M., 1985, Predicting seismic intensities in Ziony, J. I., editor,
Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region -- an earth - science perspective: U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 151 -202.
Evemden, J. F., Kohler W M., and Clow, G. D., 1981, Seismic intensities of earthquakes of
conterminous United States -- their prediction and interpretation: U. S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1223, 50 p.
Evemden, J. F., Hibbard, R. R., and Schneider 1. F., 1973, Interpretation of seismic intensity data:
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 63, p. 399 -422.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1980, An assessment of the consequences and
preparations for a catastrophic California earthquake: findings and actions taken: Report prepared by
FEMA from analysis carried out by the National Security Council, Ad hoc Committee an Assessment of
Consequences and Preparation for a Major California Earthquake, 59 p.
Harding, T. P., 1973, Newport- Inglewood trend, California - -- an example of wrenching style of
deformation, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p. 97 -116.
Hart, E. W, 1985, Fault rupture hazard zone in California: California Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42 (revised), 24 p.
Hart, E. W, Bryant, W. A., Manjou, M. W, and Kahle, J. E., Fault Evaluation Program 1984-1985.1986,
southern Coast Ranges region and other areas, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 86-3
SF.
Hauksson, E., 1987, Seismotectonics of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles basin,
southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of American, v. 77, p. 539 -561.
Hileman, J. A., Allen, C. R., and Nordguist, J. M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California region, I
http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009
EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-... Page 14 of 14
January 1932 to 31 December 1972, Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
Jacoby, G. C Sheppard, P. R., and Sieh, K. E., 1987, Was the 8 December 1812 earthquake produced by
the San Andreas fault? Evidence from trees near Wrightwood: Seismological Research Letters, v. 58, p.
14 (abstract).
Reichle, M. S., and Kahle, J. E., 1986, Written Communication, Division of Mines and Geology.
Richter C. F., 1958, Elementary seismology, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 768 p.
Richter C. F., 1970, Magnitude of the Inglewood. California, earthquake of June 21, 1920, Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, v. 60, p. 647 -649.
Slemmons, D. B., 1982, Determination of design earthquake magnitudes for microzonation, Proceedings
of Third International Conference on Microzonation, v. 1, p. 119 -130.
Taber S., 1920, The Inglewood earthquake in southern California, June 21, 1920, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, v. 10, p. 129 -145.
Toppozada, T. R., and Parke, D. L., 1982, Areas damaged by California earthquakes, 1900 -1949,
California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 82 -17 SAC, 65 p.
Toppozada. T. R, Real, C. R., and Parke, D. C., 1981, Preparation of isoseismal maps and summaries of
reported effects for pre-1900 California earthquakes: California Division of Mines and Geology Open -
File Report 8 1 -11 SAC, 182 p.
Wyss, M., 1979, Estimating maximum expectable magnitude of earthquakes from fault dimensions:
Geology, v. 7, p. 336 -340.
Yeats, R. S., 1973, Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles Basin, California: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p. 117 -135.
Ziony, J. I., Evemden, J. F., Fumal, T. E., Harp, E. L., Hatzell, S. H., Joyner W. B., Keefer D. K.,
Spudich, P. A., Tinsley, J. C., Yerkes, R. F., and Youd, T. L., 1985, Predicted geologic and seismologic
effects of a postulated magnitude 6.5 earthquake along the northern part of the Newport- Inglewood zone
in Ziony, J. I., editor, Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region, an earth- science
perspective: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 415 -442.
Ziony, J. I., and Yerkes, R. F., 1985, Evaluating earthquake and surface faulting potential in Ziony, J. I.,
editor, Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region, an earth - science perspective: U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 43 -91.
http:// www. johnmartin. conVearthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009